Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > 1848/49 in Transilvania

Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 06:23 pm
From the begining is good to set some expresions to avoid futile discusions: who was revolutionary on those years and who were contrarevolutionary. Who was loyal and who was traitor.

Both sides could be considered one or another, cos both of them considered themselves...revolutionary, but of course for different purposes. So when a faction spoke about herself, it was of course revolutionary, in the same time the oposite faction was, again of course,...contrarevolutionary smile.gif.

I'd hope that this post will be for exposing facts, not to heat the spirits.

So, feel free to contribute with anything one might know about the battles from those civil war years, which marked the eventually history of both nations.

Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 07:03 pm
The romanian forces fought on those years on the side of austrians.

They were mainly raised from the ranks of "motzi", who are peasants from the high-plateau of Carpatians. It was only a small number of professional soldiers and officers, romanians who served in border regiments.

The coordination center (headquarter) of romanian legions was Abrud (Abrudbanya), today in Alba county.

Motzii was organized in legions (or “prefecturi”). Each village had to sent 100 men fit for battle. 10 men formed a decurio, led by a decurion (equivalent to corporal or seargent), those 100 men (or 10 decurio) formed a centurio, led by a centurion (equivalent to captain).
10 villages (or 10 centurio, or 1000 men) formed a “tribunat”, led by a “tribun” (equivalent to major).
10 tribunate x 1000 men each formed a prefecture (or legion), so a legion consisted of 10.000 men.

In total, motzii raised 15 legions, more or less with full ranks.

Here are the names of a part of the motzi legions:

Legio Prima Blasiana – led by prefect Axente Sever
Legio Auraria Gemina – led by prefect Avram Iancu (age 24)
Legio Ulpia Traiana – led by prefect Nicolae Solomon
Legio Auraria et Salinae – led by prefect Simion Balint
Legio Reghin – led by prefect Constantin Romanu-Vivu
Legio Tarnava – led by prefect Macavei Moldovan
Legio Campestre – led by prefect Alexandru Batraneanu (age 25)

As armament they had mainly tools from around the house: axes, forks, “coase indreptate” (translation will be welcomed), “lanci”, with a few fire weapons: pistols, hunting rifles; some military rifles (in bad shape) were supplied by Austrian army from its warehouses from Alba Iulia and Deva, and those rifles were distribuited mainly to Legio Auraria Gemina.
Motzii had some artillery, consisting on some little iron canons and some handcrafted wooden guns (made from cherish and "frasin" wood). Powder and bullets were supplied (in small quantity) by Austrian army, the rest of the quantity was from spoiles of war.

The age of the conscripts was between 17 to 50 years.

In case of alarm, they have to suply their own food for several days, cos it was not existing a suply service for none of the legions.

sources: George Gane, member of Romanian-American Academy; Avram Iancu si timpul sau
Ioan Chindris - cercetator stiintific principal I; Institutul de istorie "George Barit".
Florian Dudas - Avram Iancu in traditia poporului.

Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 08:24 pm
Potrait of Avram Iancu (Craisorul Muntilor) by Barbu Iscovescu.

Lancea of Avram Iancu


Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 08:25 pm
Lajos Kossuth


Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 08:27 pm
Franz Joseph, emperor of Austrian empire.


Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2007 08:43 pm
This was the homes that motzii was defending in 1848/49.

photos by W. Scherz

Posted by: 21 inf May 01, 2007 01:28 pm
The fightings from Abrud, 6-19 may 1849

Prelude to the fightings.

In late April 1849, Kossuth and Hungarian government sent a Romanian deputy from Hungarian Diet, Ioan Dragos from Bihor shire (comitat) for peace talkings with Avram Iancu, in Abrud, Zarand shire(1).
The meeting between Ioan Dragos and Romanian revolutionaries took place at village of Mihaileni, in Zarand shire, at 22 or 23 April 1849. First arrived from Romanian side was Ioan Buteanu, followed by Avram Iancu, Petru Dobra, Vladutiu, Vasile Moldovan, Boieriu and others(2).
Second day, Hungarian major Hatvany communicated and confirmed to Avram Iancu the cease fire agreement during the peace talkings.
Ioan Dragos returned to Debretin to speak with Kossuth about negociations with Romanians and he is back at Mihaileni on 2nd of May 1849 to resume peace negociations(3).
At Saturday 5th of May, in Campeni and in the following day, Sunday, 6th of May 1849, in Abrud it was held a popular meeting, in the presence of Hungarian government representative, Ioan Dragos, to inform and to consult the motz population about the peace agreements(4)(5).
At 16 hours on 6th of May, word came from the outskirts of Abrud that major Hatvany with his troops is heading to the town, breaking the armistice(6). In the evening, major Hatvany with 1.400 soldiers and 3 canons entered Abrud. By that time, Avram Iancu and a number of motzi leaders had escaped from the town, but a number of other motzi leaders believed the “salvus conductus” gaved by major Hatvany and didn’t evacuated themselves at time. They was captured by hussars: prefects Buteanu, Moldovan, Dobra, Boteanu from Cluj, viceprefect Muresan, tribuns Moga, Molnar, Andreica, Boieriu, Begnescu, Arpadi and others (7) .
In the second day, Monday, 7th of May, Buteanu and Dobra was arrested at their homes. One motz, named Crisanut, from Rosia, seeing that hussars was behaving as conquerors, said to major Hatvany that he should ask the “opinion” of motzi regarding the occupation of Abrud. Major Hatvany was so angry about those words that he killed the man with his own hand(8). Hussars, backed up with some 400 hungarian militia from Rosia, killed a number of Romanian civilians and burned a number of buildings at Rosia and Abrud (8).
Hatvany sent a letter to Avram Iancu, on 7th of May, warning him to surrender the weapons otherwise all motzi will be killed, including the children in their mother’s wombs(9).
Avram Iancu did not touched the letter, he put someone to read it the front of the motzi.
Avram Iancu replied to Hatvany’s letter:
“It is true that we have few and bad weapons, very few and bad ammunition; but we have strong virtue and beliefs…, which will help us to win their good weapons with our bad weapons. We are not obeying, let our bad weapons and our great virtue to decide among we and they.”(10)

Posted by: 21 inf May 01, 2007 01:30 pm
The fighting begins

Avram Iancu decides to surround town of Abrud at Tuesday, 8th of May.
For this purpose, he deployed on Stiurt hill viceprefect Simion Groza with his men, at Cernita tribun Corches and decurion Iambor with his armed people, at nearby hills he placed tribun Aiudeanu and Rusu with the armed groups. On the hill towards Rosia is placed tribun Andreica (who escaped captivity), on the hill Surupost is tribun Faur with his men and on the rest of the hill is deployed the great army led by prefect Vladutiu. Major Hatvany, seeing the deployments of motz army, tried to open his way towards Brad city, so the reinforcements be able to link with his hussars.
The bloodiest fight was at Rosia, were 2 hungarian companies, reinforced with Hungarian militia from Abrud (a total of about 650 men strong force), attacked the units of tribun Andreica. Andreica resisted the assault and pushed back the enemy towards the town of Abrud, routing them. Another Hungarian company was surrounded by “lancieri” and almost totally wiped out in the battle. In Rosia, a Hungarian detachment started to put fire on Romanian houses, but it was took by surprise by a Romanian subunit and the fight raged late on that night. Only in this engagement the enemy lost about 300 dead and way too few wounded(11)
At 9th of May, the fightings were so close to the city that motz bullets were entering in houses thru windows. Hatvany tried to resist, but he was confronted with direct pedestrian assault when motzii reached 200 paces to the town of Abrud. He organized the retreat towards Brad city taking with him all civilians (Hungarians and Romanians) from Abrud. At the bridge from Cernita, Hungarian troops abandoned the civilians, being under attack from motzi, who saw the retreating movement of Hatvany.(12)
The evacuation was organized at evening, so the battle took also at night. At 4 a.m. on 10th of May, Hatvany tried to break thru motzi lines, but being observed, the battle took greater proportions; Hatvany and few of his men managed to escape toward Brad city, but all the other Hungarians fell in battle.(13) This last fight took place between Hatvany forces and assaulting columns led by tribun Corches and Olteanu and decurion Iambor on the left flank and tribun Aiudeanu and Rusu on the right flank.(13)
At 11th of May Abrud was in motzi’s hands, but major Hatvany made the promise that he shall return.

Posted by: 21 inf May 01, 2007 01:33 pm
He did so on 16th of May, when he returned with 2 battalions raised from Zarand shire, 2 szekler companies and additional 2 german companies from Totenkopflegion. With them was a uncertain number of “lotri” of Rozsa Sandor "bandit" (who was eventualy killed in battle by motzi). A total of 2.800 men with 4 canons. (14)
Hatvany entered Abrud on the same day of 16th of May.
On 17th of May motzii took the same positions as occupied for the previous battle. Bloodiest fightings (even hand-to-hand) was at Rosia, Corna and at hill Sturt, were viceprefect Simion Groza opposed invading forces.(15)
During the night of 18 to 19th May Avram Iancu advanced with the reserve corp from Campeni towards Abrud.
Battle was raging continuously for 30 hours, when motzii managed to throw back Hatvany’s army. He try his escape toward Zlatna city, simulating attacks on various directions as decoy for motzi.
He was reached from behind repeatedly at Gura Cornei, Cerbu, Bolfu and Dupa Piatra.
The most savage fight took place at Bucium Cerbu, were the 6th Totenkopf german company, with 4 canons, found herself surrounded by motzi. The german legionares fought desperately using even the canons, but they were completely destroyed by motzi. Only 6 german survived as prisoners. All the others were killed and canons captured.(16)

It is evaluated that in total in both battles for Abrud Hatvany lost about 5.000 men (if not more), both soldiers and militia.

Notes and bibliography

1. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1037
2. Raportul lui Iancu indicates a different date, 25 April 1849.
3. Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, Avram Iancu, p. 42
4. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1041
5. Rubin Patitia, Anul 1848/9 in Campeni, manuscript, p. 28-31
6. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1041
7. Vasile Moldovan, Amintiri, p. 124
8. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1042; A. Sever, Raspuns la Cartea Neagra, p. 59.
9. Rubin Patitia, Anul 1848/9 in Campeni, manuscript, p. 32
10. Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, Ioan Dragos, p. 43.
11. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1043
12. Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, Ioan Dragos, p. 54-55.
13. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1045
14. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1045-1046
15. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1046-1047
16. Raportul lui Iancu, p. 1048; Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, Avram Iancu, p. 17.Gracza, Az 1848-49iki magyar szabadsagharc tortenete, p. 434

Posted by: Iamandi May 01, 2007 07:22 pm
Who whas/where in the back of the motzi as military experienced leader(s)? i ask these because is a clear thing - as some in "mineriade" - some guys haves military experience in organization and tactical deployment of the troops.


Posted by: 21 inf May 01, 2007 07:37 pm
I didnt found any specific info about certain persons qualified on military art along motzi leaders ranks.

It is certan known only the fact that a small number of romanian oficers and soldiers from border regiments joined motzi ranks.

Probably the most known and qualified person was major Pop Leon, comander of 17th border regiment (2 Walachische) from Nasaud(note 1). But I dont have any info (yet), about the fact that he gave sugestions to motzi leaders about military art.

The known fact is that the organisation in Legions was established by romanian revolutionary comitee from Transilvania, based at Sibiu.

note 1 - KOSSUTH ŞI GRĂNICERII ROMÂNI REÎNTORŞI DE PE RÂUL VÁG ÎN TOAMNA ANULUI 1848 by Gyorgy Spira, Budapest. Translated in romanian by Ludovic Bathory.

Posted by: 21 inf November 07, 2007 04:43 pm
Relatarea martorului ocular Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, la pag. 28-29 din lucrarea mai jos amintita.
Eyewitness Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu, page 28-29, from the bellow mentioned book.

“Dupa o zi si o noapte, petrecuta asa precum vazuram ca am petrecut-o noi, sosi momentul decizatoriu: in 9 Mai dis-de-dimineata au inceput focul de tunuri si de pusti, cu vehementa; pe strada care duce catre Campeni, de-a lungul gradinei noastre, neintrerupt mergeau si veneau honvezii, chiar husarii, care ne pazeau pe noi, in acea zi, nu ne aveau grija; de trei ori au incercat in acea dupa amiaza a respinge pe “moti” de pe drumul de catre Carpenis; dara totdeauna s-au intors cu capetele sparte. A treia oara, cand s-au dus husarii intre injuraturi, a zis sergentul, ca daca se vor intoarce, ne vor spanzura pe toti de plopi, precum a mai spanzurat el in acea zip e niste Romani, carora mai intai le scosese ochii.
Abia a trecut o ora, numai ce vedem ca calul sergentului intra in curte, fara sergent, in fuga salbatica, plin de sange; dupa o alta jumatate de ora intra alti 3 husari in fuga mare. Si-au luat uneltele din grajd cu graba si s-au departat. Cand era sa iasa din curte, intrebai pe unul din ei: << Dar ce e?>> - <<Ce sa fie; fugim! Noi ne-am luptat in tara ungureasca cu neamurile de acolo, cu fel de fel de soldati regulate; pe toti i-am batut; dar iata ca mocanii acestia ne batjocorira. Acestia-s draci, nu-s oameni; isi trag palaria pe ochi ca sa nu vada moartea; apoi urla de ti se pare ca s-a deschis iadul, si dau navala. Pe sergent impreuna cu alti husari i-au inconjurat in apropiere de o moara si i-au taiat pe toti>>.”

Translation after romanian original:

“After a day and a night, spent as one saw that we spend it , it came the decisive moment: in the morning of 9th of May, canons and rifles opened fired, furiously; on the street toward Campeni, endlong our garden, continuously went and gone the honveds, even the hussars, which guarded us, in that day, but they didn’t cared about us; three times they tried that very afternoon to push back the Motzi from the way toward Carpenis; but each time they went back with their heads broken. …
After just an hour, we just see the hussar sergeant’s horse entering the courtyard, without the sergeant, running wild, full of blood; after another half an hour other 3 hussars entered courtyard in big run. They took their tools from the stable in a hurry and departed. When they were just to exit on street, I asked one of them: << But what is happening?>> - <<What is happening; we are running! We fought in Hungary with the nations from there, with sorts and sorts of regular troops; we defeated them all; but this mountaineers mocked us. These are devils, not humans; they put their hats on their eyes in order not to see death; then they yell as one can believe the gates of Hell broke loose, and they charge. The sergeant together with other hussars were circled near a mill and they were all cut to pieces>>.”

La anul 1784 si la anul 1849 – Material pentru partea a IV-a din Memoriul lui Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu de Carpenis
Autor: Iosif Sterca-Sulutiu
Sibiu – 1881
Se gaseste la (can be found at) Biblioteca Universitara Cluj-Napoca, cota S7851

Posted by: 21 inf November 25, 2007 08:24 pm

Prefect Simion Balint, romanian priest from Rosia Montana.
Participated at the fightings descibed above.

Posted by: Iamandi November 26, 2007 08:49 am
1. Ioan Dragos was caught at one momment and killed by motzi.

2. Look, another metion about "Totenkopf" unit(s)!

3. Most of the leaders were priests.

4. How about Toma Avramut? He was ex. millitary officer. Maybe he was one of the minds in the tactical thinking process?


Posted by: 21 inf November 26, 2007 12:15 pm
QUOTE (Iamandi @ November 26, 2007 08:49 am)
1. Ioan Dragos was caught at one momment and killed by motzi.

2. Look, another metion about "Totenkopf" unit(s)!

3. Most of the leaders were priests.

4. How about Toma Avramut? He was ex. millitary officer. Maybe he was one of the minds in the tactical thinking process?


I dont get the point about your post, but i'll try to answer.

1. Yes, Dragos was killed by moti, after the first battle with Hatvany.

2. Yes, about totenkopf legion, you'll found out more about this legion on my new site about Tara Motilor. They are mentioned by Ioan Rusu Abrudeanu in his 1928 book, it will be posible to be read entirely on the net.

3. Yes, they were mostly priests, but also lawyers, too

4. You'll read also on my new site about Toma Avramut; also, about Axente Sever, super very important info's wich made me believe that Avram Iancu's troops had at least some leaders with great military experience, as A Sever. Examples for A Sever: he had his troops organised as a batalion, entirely armed with fire weapons, 1 canon and highlly disciplined. Broke 3 times the hungarian cercle of Alba Iulia. Capable to fight by night. 300 men strong expedition for capturing hungarian food depots; and so on. All this info, very soon.

Just to take a blink, look at and click on the cover "Motii, calvarul ...."

Romanian only. For the moment, I hope smile.gif

Posted by: 21 inf November 30, 2007 09:50 pm

I am proud to present a new site
were one can found info's about 1848/49 fightings, eyewitness reports.

Just click on the cover "Motii..." and choose your chapter.

Site still under construction, but one can find the answer for a question posted above: Who had military experience in romanian transylvanian army?

Well, I might say one was prefect Axente Sever (chapter 36)

His report indicates that he was experienced military and his men also had great military training: he conducted a night atack with a batalion sized unit, loosing very few men, chasing the enemy away - this enterprise was not posible with green guys from country side; he broke the circle around Alba Iulia three times - details of the tactics on text;
The most daring raid I like most was when he looted hungarian food depots from Geoagiu. This raid conviced me that they were military experienced troops:
Axente Sever with a force as big as 300 men marched from around Zlatna toward Geoagiu, a distance of 22 km in straight line (as a bird fly). On soil it is greater the distance. They atacked Geoagiu and chased the remnants of the hungarian garison 2 km until those were throwned into Mures river. He marched then almost 12 km to reach Rapolt, with 48 wagons of war spoils. Even if he had drivers for the wagons (in order not to use his fighters) his speed was limited by the loaded wagons.
The hungarians sent a force against him to regain the war spoils, but he already marched back in the mountains, from Rapolt to Bobalna 3,5 km, from Bobalna to Geoagiu 8 km, from Geoagiu to Bacainti 7 km (all in straight line) with even more war spoils. Hungarian chasing troops never touched his unit in this march.
For this kind of enterprise I believe that he need trained men who were able to march distances so long as a fighting unit, able to engage imediately the enemy after the march in order too keep the surprise efect and advantage. He also needed to be a well organised oficer to be able to drive such a force in enemy controled teritory, to manage such a big transport and to escape with it back into his own lines.


Posted by: New Connaught Ranger December 01, 2007 12:02 pm
Hallo 21 inf

Having traveled that area, in fact I own a country house in Almasu Mic, number 13,

which is between Zlatna and Geoagiu, the road goes via Balsa, believe me its impossible to march for any distance in a straight line.

The road from Zlatna climbs to a considerable height even before you get to Almasu Mari (Miners Museum located there) and then zig-zags down into Almasu Mijoc, then to Almasu Mic.

in this picture taken from the bridge are looking from the Zlatna side, the road turns right and eventually wanders around to Brad, if you go left, eventually you will get to Balsa and Geoargiu, where at the bridge you would swing right to take the road to Rapolt

Even today the road, which follows the path it followed during that time, there is hardly a straight stretch or one that does not climb up and down hills.
This shot is taken between Balsa and Geoargiu and shows some typical sceanery.

So I would have to take Mr.Axente Sever claim's with a pinch of salt.

The road from Geoagiu to Rapolt is fairly level and good progress could be made depending on the road surface back then.

Kevin in Deva biggrin.gif

Posted by: 21 inf December 01, 2007 01:21 pm
Dear NCR,

On the first hand, thanks for the reading of my article with atention, from begining to the end.

If you would read my poor english, I pointed that the distance is in straight line AS A BIRD FLY, also I mentioned that ON SOIL (or on road if you like more), the distance is MUCH LONGER! I didnt said that they marched in straight line!!! I just calculated a distance in straight line (which is shorter than on the road, so one can imagine the hardship of such a march with 300 men even in shorter distances)

NCR, you own a house in the area, I spent almost all my childhood on that mountains, so I like to believe that I know that no one is so stupid to march STRAIGHT over those peaks and valeys....

"So I would have to take Mr.Axente Sever claim's with a pinch of salt." -NCR
"22 km in straight line (as a bird fly). On soil it is greater the distance." - 21 Inf, initial post

Ax. Sever was anything one want, but not a lier....

You can take the claims of Ax.Sever in the way you like, I have only to apologise for my english if I was not well understood what I mean. In romanian everyone would know what I wanted to describe in my small post...but rules of forum...

So, because I worked hard on the site mentioned, any good and carefully judged comment will be more than welcomed.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger December 01, 2007 03:53 pm
Hallo 21 inf,

Axente Sever with a force as big as 300 men marched from around Zlatna toward Geoagiu, a distance of 22 km in straight line (as a bird fly). On soil it is greater the distance. They atacked Geoagiu and chased the remnants of the hungarian garison 2 km until those were throwned into Mures river. He marched then almost 12 km to reach Rapolt, with 48 wagons of war spoils. Even if he had drivers for the wagons (in order not to use his fighters) his speed was limited by the loaded wagons.
The hungarians sent a force against him to regain the war spoils, but he already marched back in the mountains, from Rapolt to Bobalna 3,5 km, from Bobalna to Geoagiu 8 km, from Geoagiu to Bacainti 7 km (all in straight line) with even more war spoils. Hungarian chasing troops never touched his unit in this march.

My highlight on words in brackets!! NCR biggrin.gif .

Would it not have been a better idea to present the story in more detail?

Describing the condition of the surrounding landscape to the readers who are unfamiliar with the area??

The difficulty's encountered by Mr. Axente Sever would be more highlighted and

clear if a map or diagram of the area would have been used.

I am not sure I would entirely agree with your statement with regards green men from the country, the backbone of European armies was formed with these men, a lot of their experience came about with On The Job Training its true, but a leader sometimes does not have the chance to pick and choose the men available to him.

Can you recommend and books in English giving more details of these campaigns, as I am very interested in the military history of the local area.

Off Topic to:Axente Sever period.
Local Almasu Mic military history in the local Church yard.

By the way I never inferred that Mr. Axente Sever was a liar but depending upon when the written account was taken down with the passage of time there can be found slight inaccuracies, this is common through much early military history of many countries.

Kevin in Deva. biggrin.gif

Posted by: 21 inf December 01, 2007 04:21 pm
From now on I'm stoping to make any translation from romanian references from my site, giving the fact that it seems I dont speak enough well english. So, I dont want my work to be affected by my poor quality translations into english, leading in this way to misunderstanding from the part of the readers.

I am sure that a native romanian spoker will understand what I mean, so the articles will be posted in time on my site, in romanian language.

Unfortunatelly, I dont know any translations of those events (from romanian side) in english, maybe other forumists can give a clue if and where it can be found.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger December 01, 2007 06:59 pm
If you care to check my posts you will not find anyplace that I or any other member of this forum have commented on your English writing abilities.

If you do not wish to post in English then thats your choice and our loss, but, you could always take a third option by asking those more in proficient in English to check what you write by PM before posting, I would be glad to help out where its possible.

Kevin in Deva. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Imperialist December 01, 2007 07:55 pm
21 Inf, if you want I can translate some articles for you in order to make those stories accessible for foreign readers. No fees but no strict deadlines either. wink.gif You can contact me on PM if you are interested.

Posted by: 21 inf December 01, 2007 08:06 pm
Thanks, Imperialist!

PM sent.

There are 3 chapters describing the fightings from 1848/49 in Apuseni Mountains, reports from the leaders of the battles.

Posted by: 21 inf December 02, 2007 12:04 pm
Short text from my site, probably Imperialist will translate this small text into english when he have time:

[...]Ioan Sulutiu, care facuse ca ofiter austriac campania in contra lui Napoleon cel mare, a fost sufletul operatiunilor militare romane din muntii Abrudului si totodata inventatorul legendarelor tunuri de lemn, legate cu cercuri de fer. Prin el se trimeteau de catre comandantul cetatii Alba Iulia munitiunile necesare Motilor.[...]

Full text soon on my site, at

Posted by: contras January 10, 2010 06:43 pm
Ioan Sulutiu, care facuse ca ofiter austriac campania in contra lui Napoleon cel mare

I think there is a mistake. Ioan Sulutiu was born in 1796. Last campaingn against Napoleon took part in 1815, without participation of Austrian troops, when Sulutiu has 19 years old. I don't think at this age he could be officer in Austrian army. Maybe he was fighting in campaigns against Napoleon, and later became officer in Austrian army.

Posted by: 21 inf January 10, 2010 07:40 pm
Napoleon was oficer (sublocotenent or locotenent, I dont rem well) in french army at age 16 and he was of corsican origin. Who knows if what not the case of Sulutiu, too? His family was of transylvanian romanian noble origin and wealthy, also.

Maybe he was austrian oficer but joined another army, maybe german, or russian, who knows?

In years 1780's or some, a romanian peasant from my grandfather's village, from Zarand, was soldier in imperial austrian guard, so for a noble man as Sulutiu was easier to join army even if very young for today standards for being an oficer.

Or, you can be right, Ioan Sulutiu went into campaign against Napoleon as a young boy and only later he became oficer.

Posted by: 21 inf January 10, 2010 07:46 pm
Updated the site with daily chronicle of fightings from 1848-1849, compiling a number of sources, some of them lately discover in archives and published. Even if it is for sure not 100% complete, it is, I believe, one of the most comprehensive cronicle of the events which involved romanian forces I ever readed.

Can be readed at

Posted by: contras January 10, 2010 09:13 pm
I read it, and it is very good! Perhaps it could be showed some maps with OOB, and the main direction of advance of opposing forces. I know there might be some work on it!

Posted by: 21 inf January 11, 2010 05:50 am
I was thinking to make a "map of operations", but I still have to gather informations about OOB of romanian legions and to consult some hungarian memories, too.

The OOB of romanian legions I was told by profesionist historians that is not existing as nobody kept evidence of it in 1848-1849. For my surprise, I found unintentionally, looking for something else, the OOB for one of the romanian legions, including the following informations about romanian combatants: name and surname, vilage, age, marital status, profesion, weapons carried on the battle by own suply. If this evidence exists, it is probable that exists for other legions, too, but I need time to found it on the libraries by myself, as no person I know can point me were are to be found.

The hungarian memories usefull for this project are of Kemeny Farkas colonel and Czecz major. I found Kemeny colonel's memories, but I have to confront it with other sources, because there are some info which are not coresponding with the romanian ones. One example of inadvertence: in a certain date, let's say 4 of november 1848 romanian sources point that a romanian unit atacked and took a certain village, beating hungarian troops. In the same time, Kemeny colonel point that he deliberatelly atacked the same romanian unit and heavilly defeated it. Even for the 3rd battle from Abrud, romanian sources point that romanians earned a great victory against Kemeny, while Kemeny says that he managed to beat the romanians (but he had great loses in men and artillery, no food at all and lost Abrud, having to retreat in haste).

I didnt managed to find Czecz's memories.

Other romanian battles are not recorded by hungarian sources, even if they were of relatively great extent.

Posted by: contras January 11, 2010 10:24 pm
21 Inf, just put them there, and let others to think about them. Let me help you with some information, I read some books by Ilie Furduiu, both published by Editura Altip, Alba Iulia:
1. Revolutia dela 1848-1849, martiri si eroi
2. Abrud, pagini de eroism.
Published in 2001 and 2002.
I believe they are help you to make a better wiew about these historical events, very important to us.

Posted by: 21 inf January 12, 2010 03:24 am
Any help is more than welcome!! Thank you!

Posted by: contras January 13, 2010 09:52 am
For a start, here is a map, from Lt-col Draganescu Constantin, Campaniile din 1848/1849 si 1919 din Transilvania si Ungaria, 1930.

Posted by: 21 inf January 13, 2010 11:01 am
Many thanks!

Posted by: ANDREAS February 04, 2010 01:01 am
Hallo everybody,
A short question : the hungarian detachments who fight the moti legions were part of the Józef Bem army, or independent units organised by the Hungarian nobility from Transylvania?

Posted by: 21 inf February 04, 2010 03:41 pm
Some hungarian units were hungarian army regulars, others were militia. I dont know if the hungarian militia was raised by hungarian nobles or by others.

Some hungarian militia fought independently, some side by side with hungarian regulars, depending on the situation.

The name under the hungarian militia was designated was "szabadcsapatok" in hungarian language or, in english translation "free corps".

Posted by: contras February 04, 2010 06:48 pm
Like a completation, here is OOB in December 1848 (Austrian and Hungarian troops):

a) at Hungarian western frontier
3-4000 men at Teschen
5000 at Goding (gen. Simunic)
45 000 at Wien, under direct command of Windisch Gratz
6-8000 men at Stiria's frontier (Gen. Nugent)
cool.gif in South (Austro-Serbian forces)
15 000 in Bacska county, on the Frantz Canal
28 000 in Banat (from which 8000 in Timisoara and 5000 in Arad garrisons)
c) 15-18 000 in Transylvania, under gen Puchner, at that forces must be added Romanian guards
d) 10-12 000 men in North, arrived from Galitia, under gen. Schlick
Supreme comander, prince Windisch Gratz

a) at western frontier, 3-5000 men in Leopoldstadt area
30 000 men in Pressburg area, under Gogey
10-12 000 at Stiria's frontier (gen. Perczel)
cool.gif in south, in Bacska county and in Banat, 25-30 000 men
c) east, 8-10 000 men under gen. Bem (Oradea), there must be added 4 brigades in Transylvania
d) in north, 3-4000 men in Maramures
8-10000 in Kachau area (gen. Pulszki)
e) hungarian garrisons (25 000 men) at fortresses Komarom, Leopoldstadt, Esseg, Neusatz.
Total hungarian forces, about 130 000 men, from whom 50 000 were Honved, the rest was formed by militia and national guards.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 04, 2010 10:08 pm
Thank you contras, useful additions!
I found in a e-book "AZ 1848–-1849-ES FORRADALOM ÉS SZABADSÁGHARC 150. ÉVFORDULÓJÁRA" by BONA GÁBOR - that the honved troops from the hungarian army were organised in december 1848 like this : 62 hungarian infantry battalions raised from mainland Hungary, 10 hungarian national guards battalions, 1 polish and 1 german infantry battalions, with unknown numbers of troops from Transylvania. There were also 9 huszar (cavalry) regiments with 82 squadrons. The artillery was organized in 32 batteries with a total of 260 guns, without counting the batteries of the Komarom, Petervarad, Eszek, Lipotvar fortresses. Other 3 pioneer battalions and 4 squadrons were raised. There were 85.000 man in the infantry, 10.000 men in the cavalry, 4.500 men in the artillery and 2.500 men in the engineer troops. I'll try to found informations over Bem's army to see if the troops send to crush the moti romanian legions were regular or militia.

Posted by: contras February 04, 2010 10:16 pm
I'm sorry about my reply, I intended to counter the troops, I put the letter b and I added the brakes, ), and I found later thet it apears a smiley face! Sorry about this, and please read this smiley face like b and ).
Thank you.

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2010 05:37 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 04, 2010 10:08 pm)
Thank you contras, useful additions!
I found in a e-book "AZ 1848–-1849-ES FORRADALOM ÉS SZABADSÁGHARC 150. ÉVFORDULÓJÁRA" by BONA GÁBOR - that the honved troops from the hungarian army were organised in december 1848 like this : 62 hungarian infantry battalions raised from mainland Hungary, 10 hungarian national guards battalions, 1 polish and 1 german infantry battalions, with unknown numbers of troops from Transylvania. There were also 9 huszar (cavalry) regiments with 82 squadrons. The artillery was organized in 32 batteries with a total of 260 guns, without counting the batteries of the Komarom, Petervarad, Eszek, Lipotvar fortresses. Other 3 pioneer battalions and 4 squadrons were raised. There were 85.000 man in the infantry, 10.000 men in the cavalry, 4.500 men in the artillery and 2.500 men in the engineer troops. I'll try to found informations over Bem's army to see if the troops send to crush the moti romanian legions were regular or militia.

I can tell you for sure that the hungarian units sent against moti were both militia and regulars. Examples: Hatvany's troops from 1st battle from Abrud, early June 1849 were in most part militia, no evidence of regulars. Hatvany himself was apointed major, but unoficially, as he was in reality a lawyer and volunteered to fight. Regular officers didnt apreciated him at all cos he has no military preparation and skills.

In second battle from Abrud, late June 1849 there was again Hatvany with other militia (from the first battle almost no militia survived) and regulars. In this battle one identified regular unit was a german company, called Totenkopf german company. It was probably from Austria, Wien. Only 6 of them survived. Another unit was of bandits, having as comander the famous Rozsa bandit. This last unit was not identified for sure during or after the battle, even if it is said that Rozsa himself was KIA during fightings.

As far as I understand from what I read, the troops of Kemeny Farkas colonel at the 3rd battle from Abrud, July 1849, were mostly regulars. They included some 20 canons and some rocket batteries together with pioneer units. I didnt managed to find out the identity of the units, but their results and smalest loses in comparison with Hatvany's 2 disasters show better military skills.

Vasvari Pal's 3000 men unit heavily defeated at Fantanele battle in 1849 was almost entire raised from militia, although a small number of regulars is not excluded, but not proved.

Czecz major troops operating on Crisul Alb valley around Halmagiu area I believe is both regulars and militia, but no evidence so far.

Militia was also defeated in battles from Iara, around Teius and other locations.

In Aiud was also garisoned regulars and militia in late 1848 and early 1849.

The siege of Alba Iulia fortress from April-August 1849 was conducted by both regulars and militia and this ones colided with Axente Sever's units a few times.

In total, Klapka general apreciated in his memoires that almost 50% of hungarian army from Transylvania was imobilised by operations against moti and was an important reason that hungarian were beaten by russians, cos these troops were unable to engage the czarist army when invaded Transylvania.

Posted by: Dénes February 05, 2010 06:27 am
QUOTE (21 inf @ February 05, 2010 11:37 am)
...these troops were unable to engage the czarist army when invaded Transylvania.

This is the first time I see the main factor of the Hungarian Revolution's demise is mentioned in this long thread: the Russians.

The Hungarian troops were not defeated by the Austrians, Croats, Slovaks, or Rumanians, etc., but the Russians.
This was the first time the Russians intervened in Central Europe against Hungary in a sinister chain of three events, crushing the Hungarians (the others being in 1944/1945 and 1956).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2010 04:21 pm
Of course that the russian crushed the hungarian revolutionary armies. The austrians were too weak to do so. Speaking about Transylvanian campaign, the austrian armies were driven off into Wallachia by hungarian regulars. The only austrian-controlled place remaining in Transylvania was Alba Iulia fortress, for the entire length of the civil war.

Romanian militia, as also croat, serb and other militia, were not able, due to poor equimpment, armament and military skills, to gain a decisive victory against hungarians. They were also not enough in number of fighters to face for long open regular battles against hungarian army. They were able to conduct a guerilla war, with it's characteristics.

This romanian, serb or croat militia were only contributing, sometimes esentially, but not decisivelly to the defeat of hungarian revolutionary armies.

Posted by: dead-cat February 05, 2010 07:35 pm
Temesvar was also held by the austrians through a 3 month siege until relieved by Haynau after the battle of Temesvar in august '49.

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2010 08:06 pm
I didnt mentioned Timisoara because it is in Banat and my interes is only in Transylvania's 1848/49, but any suplementar info is welcome. Thank you!

Posted by: ANDREAS February 06, 2010 12:53 am
Many thanks 21 inf,
Really useful informations you gave!
I also found something, translated below, about the troops of colonel Kemény Farkas who fought the battle from 16 june 1849 in the Abrud area :
"In June 16, 1849, Avram Jancu Romanian rebel troops launched a new attack against Abrud defended by the army (hungarian army), but because of food and ammunition shortage it had to retreat, than the rebels startled the city and destroyed it. The retreat was covered by the Colonels Forró 11th (Honved) Battalion soldiers, 300 of whom were killed or wounded in the battles."

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2010 05:04 am
Kemeny Farcas entered Abrud after a series of battles which delayed him on the road to this city. He left Brad, Hunedoara county, and headed toward Abrud, which was considered the key of the mountains. Capturing it, he was practicaly stoping any organised resistance in the mountains.

After several days on the road, and battles, Kemeny was deliberately let by moti to entered Abrud. This allowance to capture Abrud without fight was part of romanian strategy, because the moti knew extremelly well what they were able, after two succesfull battles against Hatvany, in the exactly same city.

Imediatly after Kemeny's army went toward Abrud, the units of Simion Balint prefect atacked the rear of the hungarian column. Balint atacked an important convoy of food and ammo and captured it. This was the first step to the defeating of hungarian army.

Once in Abrud, Kemeny found it already devastated after the previous 2 heavy fightings against Hatvany. Kemeny barely found shelter into a romanian priest house, wich was still good enough to be inhabited.

Kemeny tried to make his way towards Campeni, so the fight started. Battle rages for several days, until Kemeny, seeing that he has no food (he already had several soldiers died from starvation in Abrud), low on ammo and with his retreating way toward Brad cut, he decided to retreat toward Zlatna. He did so, leaving behind a covering force and pushing some decoy atacks in diferent direction to camouflage his real direction of retreat.

Romanians didnt destroyed the city intentionally. At that time, Abrud was in most part in ruins due to previous battles and it was hit again during confrontation with Kemeny. Kemeny loses were more than thise 300 men, it is evaluated at more than 500 men.

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2010 06:21 am
I learned some minutes ago that Kemeny Farkas was also from militia. He was comander of hungarian national guard from Turda, apointed as major, initially.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 06, 2010 06:30 pm
Indeed 21 inf,
I also found this information about baron Kemeny Farcas -that he was the commander of the militia troops from Turda, which in april 1849 consists of 3 militia companies and a cavalry squadron.

Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 07:00 pm
It is little know that, between defenders of fortress of Alba Iulia, were many Romanian soldiers, part of legion of Axente Sever, who were trapped inside by the aparition of Hungarian troops. This Romanians made many incursions outside the walls and fought bravelly, Austrians were not so eager to leave the protection of the strong walls of the fortress. Contrarywise, they were treated like second-hand allies.

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2010 07:31 pm
Actually, the story of Axente Sever's troop in Alba Iulia fortress is a little bit diferent.

Axente Sever wasn't traped inside fortress when the hungarian siege corp arived. Actually he was at large and ordered to head toward Alba Iulia, but he disobeyed order and headed toward Sibiu, wich was threatened by hungarian troops. On his way, learning that Sibiu felt to hungarian troops, he changed direction to aproach mountains.

He asisted from mountains the fortress in 2 cases starting atacks to release the presure that hungarian siege corp put on austrian garison.

On a third atack he managed to enter fortress and join his troop to defenders. Being in the fortress part of his troop manned the fortress together with austrian units and part (the bulk) served the fortress as workers, mainly cuting the so much needed grass for the livestock from fortress, often under enemy fire. This important job of gathering food for animals was recognised by austrian comanders. After a quite short period, having broken rifles repaired, lances replaced with rifles and clothed with new clothes, Axente Sever's troop was asked to leave fortress under the reasons that there it is not enough food for the garison to sustain also romanian militia.

Axente Sever initiated a night atack to surge thru hungarian encirclement and managed to reach mountains safely. Only a romanian militia column of 80 men was unable to surge thru enemy lines and returned with few loses in the fortress were they stayed until siege was raised.

In the ranks of austrian regulars was a number of romanian units. At the begining of fightings for Alba Iulia the romanian border regiment (I dont rem if it was the one from Bistrita or the one from Sibiu) was sent out from the fortress because disobeyed some orders repeteadly. The romanian border regiment from Banat was also fighting as garison in Alba Iulia fortress and they performed very well during siege.

The austrians were not eager to leave the protection of the walls because the garison was short on men. At the begining of the siege the austrian comander decided to defend only the inner part of the fortification due to lack of enough manpower. The reserve echelon of garison was very small and any loses were very hard to replace. Most of garison was engaged in defending the walls and during the siege illnesses broke into the rank of garison. Even the artilery was not on the quota needed for a proper defense of the fortress. Austrian garison, including sometimes the romanian border regiment from Banat made some incursions in the city or in the surrounding, sometimes for counteratack hungarian army, sometimes for gathering food and construction wood. Romanians from Banat border regiment performed extremely well during these incursions.

Romanians from after 1848 and nowadays romanians wonder why austrian treated us with mistrust sometimes or as second-hand allies. We forget often or almost always that on the 3rd Blaj romanian national gathering the romanians proclaimed that wanted union with the country (Romania, even if it didnt existed yet). This fact is more important when it is added that Alexandru Ioan Cuza himself and colonel David Urs from romanian border regiment attended the same gathering were was given that proclamation. Most of romanian prefects from militia were living in Wallachia, even if they were transylvanians, returned in Transylvania for the revolution.

Austrians didnt forget the union intentions of romanians and acted acordingly, during and after 1848-1849 revolution. After all, it was their empire on the stake and they didnt cared about romanians, hungarians, serbs or other nationalities from the empire. They cared about hungarians only in 1867 when being weakened, needed a serious strong ally from the interior of the empire.

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2010 07:52 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 06, 2010 06:30 pm)
Indeed 21 inf,
I also found this information about baron Kemeny Farcas -that he was the commander of the militia troops from Turda, which in april 1849 consists of 3 militia companies and a cavalry squadron.

As far as I know, the hungarian national guard from Turda was only intentioned to have 3 infantry companies and one cavalry company, as it was stated on 30 March 1848 when was declared the intention to raise a national guard from the city.

In May 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda had only 3 infantry companies and no cavalry company. At the end of April 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda received 200 flint rifles and in midle May received 6000 rounds of ammo. On the expense of the city 300 lances (lanci) were made.

At the end of July 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda was 684 men strong, armed with 200 bayonet rifles and 184 hunting rifles. An aditional sum of money was given to make more lances.

The hungarian national guard from Turda disarmed in middle September 1848 one austrian company from Carol Ferdinand regiment and with the captured rifles, it armed itself.

Lately, at some unmentioned date, the hungarian national guard from Turda raised her ranks to 1080 men, having as comander the same Kemeny Farkas baron. These men were armed with 400 bayonet rifles, 300 hunting rifles and 400 lances. They were organised in 4 infantry companies wich formed lately a batalion. From the suroundings of Turda an aditional militia force was raised, consisting on another 4 infantry companies of 300-600 men strong. No cavalry militia unit is mentioned to be raised.

Maybe some few cavalry men served together with infantry militia, but not as a unit, as in other hungarian national guards from Transylvania was the case, but this situation is not mentioned, thus being just a hypothesis of mine.

source: Közlemények by Süli Attila, A nemzetőrség szervezése Erdélyben
1848 nyarán és őszén

Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 08:04 pm
Thank you, 21 inf, about your info's.
I see you are very documented about these facts. What do you believe about the missed meeting between Avram Iancu and Franz Iosef, during his visit in Transylvania in 1852? There are many interpretions about it, Silviu Dragomir gave us one, but there are many historians who don't have a significant clue to explain it.

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2010 09:09 pm
I dont know what S Dragomir said. Being with my roots from the same village with Avram Iancu, I can guess, as being a motz myself, why he didnt met the emperor in the mountains and why he refused the decorations. I am an amateur historian, not a profesionist one.

I personally dont think that Avram Iancu reasons for not meeting the emperor are very complicated. Actually, I believe that are quite extremelly simple. But one have to see again the statements of Avram Iancu after 1850. And not to be so sure that he was mad. Actually he was very normal, having just a mental depresion, wich is very different than insanity.

But as I said, maybe one has to be motz in order to feel and to think as a motz, as Avram Iancu was. And the reasons will surface alone, simple and basic, by themselfs. smile.gif Even Avram Iancu's contemporans didnt understand him. Only few were those who understand that he was not mad and those who understand his deeds and words.

Can you post what S Dragomir said about the lost meeting?

Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 09:33 pm
About what said S Dragomir, I had his book, but he didn't gave us a sentence, just put the facts, let us judge by ourselvs.
I'm sure, very sure, that Avram Iancu wasn't mad. I can said he was very lucid until his death. And for this are many memories, many important men meet him short time until he died and they said he was very lucid. Maybe he pretends himself to be mad, just to be leaved alone, with his dissapointments.
I'll look in Silviu Dragomir book and I'll give you the references.

Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 09:48 pm
Despre asa zisa nebunie a lui Avram Iancu, citeste aici:

Veti afla mai multe despre teoria nebuniei lui Avram Iancu, o teza des intalnita printre adversarii sai. Citind asta, poate ii vom intelege mai indeaproape motivatiile.

Posted by: contras February 06, 2010 09:57 pm
Sorry, sooner I posted some commentaries in Romanian, and taked by the wave, I put the last one in same language.
The translate is (aprox):

About so called Avram Iancu's madness, read here:

You'll find more about Avram Iancu's madness theory, one thesis often related by his adversaires. Reading this, maybe we will understand better his motivations.

Excuse me and thank you,


Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 05:27 am
Well, the articles are quite good writen, without many misunderstandings, wich is odd for romanian nowaday press. But they dont give a final clear conclusion, just chating on the subject.

The story about Iancu's madness is not true and it never was. He had a major depresion episode, with recurencies. Insanity (or madness) have a totaly diferent clinical evolution. What was describes about Iancu shows a major depresion, one can find the simptoms in any psichiatry book.

About the reason not to meet austrian emperor, but this might be a long story, one have to see all the personality of Iancu to understand him and not to seek complicated answers.

Based on contemporan writings the following are usefull to be known about Iancu.

Iancu was second son of a motz peasant, Alisandru Iancu. His father had a better situation, having a state job, to guard the governamental forests, but still a peasant. Iancu went to school in his village, after that he was sent to higher schools in diferent cities from Transylvania, all of hungarian language and education. He never gave up his nationality and ortodox religion during school years, never forgeting that he is a poor motz and romanian.

At the outbreak of 1848 revolution he was 24 years old and he managed to became a lawyer. From the begining he distingueshed himself as being a fighter for romanian claimed rights, but also being a fair one.

At the outbreak of military events in october 1848 he was apointed as prefect of Auraria Gemina Legion and took part with all his legion at the march against Cluj city. From now on, his fair personality was to be shown and recognised and apreciated by either austrians (allies) and enemies (hungarians). During this march, in one village, a hungarian woman with a new born baby, came in tears to Avram Iancu, beging not to be killed by romanian militia. Her husband shot dead a romanian legionaire and he was instantly killed by other militia, who wanted now to kill also the family of the shooter. Iancu asked the woman if the baby is baptised or not and it was seen that was not. Then, Iancu told everybody that he will be the godfather of the baby and did so and no one dared to touch anymore on this hungarian lady and her child.

Being camped outsite Turda, a citisen of Turda came to Iancu and acused a romanian legionaire that this one stoled a fork (eating tool - furculita) from him. The price of the fork was ridiculous small, but Iancu sentenced to death the romanian legionaire because steeling from enemy civilians. Hungarians intervened at Iancu to forgive the romanian thieve cos the punishment was considered too hard for such a small offence. Eventually Iancu pardoned the life of that legionaire.

During all march from mountains to Cluj, Puchner writed that not even a single offence hapened to enemy civilians from romanians as long Iancu was present, because he mantained a high tough discipline and made a real diference on armed enemy and civilians who were not involved in the fightings.

Lately in 1848 and during 1849 it hapened that in some places romanians captured a lot of goods during fightings. In some atacks romanians captured important quantities of gold from mining offices. Being imperial belongings, Iancu put them aside, as a good austrian subject and returned the gold to austrian authorities at the end of the civil war. Iancu was often out of money, ammo and food, but he never touched imperial gold. In one case he even returned the imperial gold, during hostilities, to a austrian official who survived fightings, in order to be returned to the state. Eventually, that austrian oficial gave the gold to hungarian militia who spent it on buying rifles and ammo to be used against austrians and romanians.

Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 06:00 am
From the begining of the revolution Iancu asked for romanian rights and the delegation sent in early 1848 to the austrian emperor claimed that rights. In particular Iancu asked that the forests to be given back to motzi, wich owned them since forever but were striped by their posesions in time. No clear answer came from the emperor, nor to the romanian delegation from 1848, neither lately when Iancu went to Wien after 1849.

In 15 december 1849 Avram Iancu was arested by austrian army in Halmagiu, in a day when romanians was gathered to the local fair. Being aware that Iancu was arested, motzi put presure on the austrian garison, threatening with total destruction and the soldiers set Iancu free imediately, claiming that it was a confusion and that they were looking for someone else. But Iancu said that the austrians knew very well who he was and that they had specific orders to bring him in. It was the first blow that Iancu received from austrians.

In february 1850 Iancu traveled at Wien with a romanian delegation to see the emperor. He was told by some people to borrow money for hiring some servants, a carriage and a lavish house, to clothe in very shiny clothes in order to make a good impresion to austrian oficials. He refused to do so, stating that he fought for romanian motzi rights and he has no reason to ask to be rewarded, it has to be understand that romanians are to be rewarded for fighting for the emperor.

In Wien Iancu was awarded with austrian medals who recognised the merits during war, but not one word was said about the claimed rights and forests. In this situation Iancu refused the decrations, stating again his claims for rights and forests. He was called once again to the wienese police station and handed the medals again. Again he firmly refused them and being so, he was asked to leave Wien in 24 hours. From now on his depresion episode will start.

He returned home sad that he was not rewarded with the rights and the forests, deeply hurt in his soul and with the understanding that he was only a tool for austrians during civil war.

In 1852 the friends of Avram Iancu managed to persuade the emperor's men to change the route of his transylvanian visit in order to pass thru Vidra de Sus, cos they hoped Iancu will meet finaly the emperor. All the preparations were made in this event and even Iancu was very involved in the preparations. In the last minutes before emperor's ariving Iancu dispeared and no one managed to find him to introduce him to the emperor. The emperor left Vidra de Sus empty handed, only to be asked few days later by Iancu to received him at Campeni, were he stayed for a short time. The emperor's guard drived off Iancu, cos he presented to the emperor's quartier very late at night. Again Iancu didnt met with the emperor.

After these events Iancu went to Zarand, leaving his home from Vidra de Sus. He lived in Zarand, wandering the mountains and the villages. One of my ancestors, being a child, aged 5 or 6 in 1852, used to feed Iancu when he came into his village and he never see Iancu as being a mad man.

Further arest will follow some years later, imprisonment in Sibiu, beatings from austrians in prison, deepening his depresion more. He never recovered after this last arest, but he was not mad, for sure.

My opinion is that the personality of Iancu drove him into depresion. He believed in his goals, the rights for romanians. He was a simple man, stuborn as the majority of the motzi, fair and with a high sense of equity. He failed to understand the mechanisms of state diplomacy, as he proved in his Wien journey. He was an excelent warior, but a poor diplomat. He couldnt see that what he gained in war had to gain also on diplomatic field, he couldnt understand why he should do so, when his deeds were clear to everybody.

That's why he went to a deep sadness wich drove him to a deep depresion, never to recover. Maybe he also realised that thousands of his people died following him in war, died in battle, from starvation or executed by enemy for no imediate results at the end. On the other hand, he acted corect to enemy during civil war, not alowing civilian or prisonier killings, lootings and revenge were he was present. So he wanted his reward without having to ask for it, as a fair compensation for his people loses during revolution.

Of course these are my amateur historian conclusions and others may agree or disagree them as well.

details on the subject here, romanian language

Posted by: Dénes February 07, 2010 08:40 am
21inf., first of all let me state clearly that I am not knowledgeable at all in the 1848/1849 revolution. I only read a few articles and studies related to this subject, both in Rumanian and Hungarian.

Based on what I've read, it seems to me the picture you painted about Avram Iancu is idealised and romanticised, highlighting only the good sides.

It is always a good practice for historians to consult sources of both (all) conflicting parties to have a more balanced picture.

After I read your posts, I checked the Hungarian version of Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica has no entry for him):

Would you care to comment some of the charges against him that appear on that site (ie, the killing of thousands of unarmed Hungarians, incl. civilians, or about his madness/alcoholism - the topic of the last posts)?

user posted image
[Source: Wikipedia]



Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 12:39 pm
Yes, Denes, I can answer to your question, wich is pertinent and understandable giving the fact that you had the oportunity to consult other sources, too.

The most easily part is answering the alcoholism issue. It is true that Avram Iancu was seen drunk after his depresion started. During his drunkness he was not agresive and sometimes amazed the auditory how clear were his ideas when he answered questions from public. Some bad intentioned romanians gave Iancu to drink only to see him drunk and making him look silly. None of his biographers called him alcoholic, and no one avoided the alcohol subject.

Some hungarian historians tried to put the death of hundreds or thousands of hungarian civilians onto Iancu's back. Iancu was never oficially acused of murder or giving orders in this directions. Contrary, there are a lot of cases when he saved the life of hungarian civilians. Puchner general stated this fact in his declaration in late octomber 1848. During fightings in 1849 no hungarian civilian was killed where Iancu was present in person. He strictly forbided romanian militia to kill unarmed and noncombatant hungarian civilians and he was much respected, so romanian militia followed strictly his orders.

In Zlatna romanian militia acted without any previous plan. Couple of days earlier Abrud hungarian national guard was disarmed peacefully, Iancu being present and negociating the disarmament. All civilians were protected by his orders, both hungarian and romanian. Diferent unit from romanian militia entered Zlatna, inspired by Abrud events, without being ordered so. Both militia, hungarian and romanian, agreed to a truce waiting for negociations. Hungarian national guard (the hungarian source pointed in wikipedia says it was not armed) opened fire against romanian militia wich stood in the city's square preparing to eat. Some 6 or 7 romanians fell dead, the rest withdraw in haste. Regrouping, romanian landsturm charged the city and killed many of the now retreating hungarian militia. Also hungarian civilians felt during this assault. Hearing after one day what hapened to Zlatna, Iancu went to this city and stoped the killing. All surviving hungarian civilians were brought to Abrud, in order to be better protected by Avram Iancu's legion, wich was more disciplined than the others.

In Aiud the hungarian militia withdrawed without leaving it's weapons, as it was agreed. Unfortunately, some romanian comanders lost control of their men and the killing of hungarian unarmed civilians occured. It was a regretable incident, but Iancu was not present there and there were no people from his legion there. He was also not aware what was hapening in Aiud. Some prefects and tribuns were charged as guilty in this case and almost sure they were, cos in Aiud were killed inocent hungarian civilians. Some of the romanian comanders were imprisoned by austrian as punishment for the killing.

On the other vilages mentioned by hungarian wikipedia Iancu was never present and he didnt order or agreed the killing hapened there, of hungarian civilians. In some cases the killing of hungarian civilians ocured as "colateral damage" as they died during fightings, unintentionally killed, others were killed as revenge cos in some cases hungarian militia killed romanian inocent civilians as they were took some romanian vilages. Also in the ranks of romanian civilians killed were women, childrens, elders and other noncombatants.

In Abrud, after the first taking of the city by Hatvany, many hungarian civilians were killed after romanian militia entered the city, as revenge for romanian civilians killed by Hatvany's men. When Iancu entered city he tried to stop the killings and stop the fires set to destroy hungarian homes, but it was extremely hard to stop the mob's fury. Then Iancu called for the unit of Axente Sever, wich was extremelly well disciplined and the disaster stoped. Iancu took then all surviving hungarian civilians under his own protection.

From Rosia Montana also Iancu brought all surviving hungarian civilians in order to protect them for further killings and revenge from romanian part.

Iancu is atested as also taking care of hungarian military prisoners. At least one case is documented, a hungarian oficer who received money from the own pocket of Iancu in order to buy food for himself, for the romanian militia had no suplies to feed the prisoners. Iancu also was very angry on his troops for killing Ioan Dragos, the emisar of L. Kossuth after the taking of Abrud. Another killing wich Iancu mourned was the death of Vasvari Pal, an important hungarian revolutionary.

Far from trying to idealise the image of Iancu, he was probably one of the few romanian comanders who was intentionaly protecting hungarian civilians or prisoners. The others were indiferent or in some cases took revenge when oportunity apeared.

Iancu was a dreamer, he hate to fight and kill and it is very posible that this caracteristic of his personality drove him into deep depresion. One of his famous saying was that "between you and us (hungarians and romanians - my note) the sword can never decide".

I believe that this is a good quote from his saying to show that he didnt aproved or didnt took part of the massacres.

Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 12:46 pm
Iancu also was very angry on his troops for killing Ioan Dragos, the emisar of L. Kossuth after the taking of Abrud.

Dragos was killed by retaliation for hanging Ioan Buteanu and others.

Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 12:53 pm
At the time Dragos was killed, Buteanu was still alive, prisoner in Brad. He was killed few days later, when Hatvany withdraw in Hungary. At the time Dragos was killed, the romanians knew nothing of Buteanu's fate. Same in the case of Petru Dobra. He was knew by romanians as being prisoner, but at the time romanians took Abrud from Hatvany, he was already dead, but romanians were not aware of this.

Dragos was killed cos he was considered a traitor, because in the time when he discussed with romanians during his gained armistice, Hatvany entered Abrud by surprise. It is now known that Dragos didnt knew the intentions of Hatvany, so he was killed for nothing.

Posted by: contras February 07, 2010 01:10 pm
It is known that Hatvany had precise orders from Kossuth that, in place of negotiatons, to crush the Romanian resistence by surprise.

Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 01:27 pm
Hatvany had his orders, but Dragos was not aware of those. He was sent to negociate a peace.

Kossuth realised that the situation in the mountains cant persist for much longer, cos he needed a peacefull area inside the country in order to have liberty of action against austrians and russians, to consolidate his teritory conquered during revolution. So, he acted on two "fronts": a peacefull solution (Dragos) or as reserve a hard solution (armed intervention - Hatvany and his militia).

The terms and conciliations presented by Dragos to romanians in the name of Kossuth were so diferent in comparison with those from the outbreak of the hungarian revolution, that hungarian officer Czecz Janos exclamed that those who offered such conditions to romanians, from hungarian side, are or yellow cowards, or traitors of Hungary.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 07, 2010 01:55 pm
the hungarian national guard from Turda was only intentioned to have 3 infantry companies and one cavalry company

You are right 21 inf,
Since some of the translations of the hungarian text, as this one, were made by use of the translator online maghiar -englez, it is very likely that such errors occured. I'm sorry!
Do you know if the national guard companies from Turda later formed the 11th honved battalion mentioned in the book I quoted? Or it is a different unit?
I put that question in order to find an answer - the difference between the troops of national guard and the troops of honved infantry. Because from what I understand now the first step was raising the militia -national guard- than equip and train them, and finally made them honved infantry units?
Because many sources I found speak about hungarian militia troops send against romanian moti legions, not (or few) regular army units, (maybe) in an attempt to belittle the importance of the romanian military actions in central Transylvania. What dou you know?

Posted by: 21 inf February 07, 2010 03:01 pm
I dont know if Turda hungarian national guard became 11th infantry batalion.

Honved is in free translation means "defender of the home". I dont know it was planned some conversion from militia to regulars (honved). Sometimes romanians used to name any uniformed hungarian force as "honved".

Posted by: Dénes March 06, 2010 08:06 am
Ten days before commemorating the start of Hungarian Revolution of 1848/1849 - 15 March, a national celebration of all Hungarians - the only surviving brass cannon of Gábor Áron, a famous szekler cannon builder and artillery officer, has been temporarily returned to the Szekler National Museum in Sf. Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy, from the Bucharest National Museum.

user posted image
[Photo: Henning János, Duna TV]

The 370 kg cannon will be publicly displayed within the "In Memoriam Gábor Áron (1814-1849)" event, starting on 12 March.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2010 12:39 pm
Nice piece!

Posted by: contras March 06, 2010 09:45 pm
Nice piece, Denes.
I wonder if exist until now one of the cannon made by Iancu's soldiers, from cherry wood. It will be interesting to see one of them.

Posted by: Lup_Alb March 08, 2010 06:43 am
I saw an year or so ago an episode of Mythbusters on Discovery Channel. They built a wooden canon out of oak and it held very well. They tried to destroy it and they did only after they charged it with enough blackpowder to destroy even an iron canon smile.gif .

Posted by: dead-cat March 08, 2010 07:33 am
during the 1620ies, Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, used light cannons made of leather in Poland. if that worked, why not wood?
as it turned out, it wasn't quite that useful though.

Posted by: contras March 08, 2010 07:36 am
The cherry wood cannons, made by Iancu's soldiers, were able to shoot 5-7 times, with acceptable accuracy. Maybe 21 inf can give us more details about it.

Posted by: 21 inf March 08, 2010 02:49 pm
Yes, in 1848-1849 transylvanian romanians (and especially motzes) used canons made of chery wood. They had a barell made of wood, circled with a high number of metal rings for reinforcement of the barell. After 5-7 shots they had to be replaced as they were of no use due to gas presure from black powder. The interior of the barel was made using a "sferedel".

Canon balls were made from stone. Aiming was empiric as canons had no sights. Usually a motz "artilery" man used to put a rifle on the barell, aim with the rifle, adjust the position of the canon using the rifle aiming and after that give fire to the canon's powder. The same was in case of iron canons captured from hungarians, as motzes had no artilery training. This aiming was quite acurate for them.

Wood canons were used in several battles against hungarian troops, with good results, even if these results were not counted in number of casualties, but in terms of demoralising the enemy. In some cases, the powerfull sound of this kind of wood canons made greater impresion than victims in enemy ranks, routing them from the battlefield.

Posted by: Dénes March 12, 2010 05:43 pm
Photo series of the unpacking and mounting of the brass cannon, mentioned in my earlier post, as seen on the web site of the Szekler National Museum:

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dead-cat March 15, 2010 10:11 am
isn't today the commemorative day of the start of the revolution?

Posted by: Dénes March 15, 2010 10:19 am
Yes, it is. It's a National Holiday in Hungary (and most Hungarians outside Hungary observe it, too).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dead-cat March 15, 2010 11:39 am
an old school pal of mine used to gather with some friends at the Petöfi memorial in TM on the occasion.
is there any special greeting formula in hungarian for the day? i'd send him a SMS.

Posted by: Dénes March 15, 2010 11:56 am
QUOTE (dead-cat @ March 15, 2010 05:39 pm)
is there any special greeting formula in hungarian for the day? i'd send him a SMS.

Nothing special. Perhaps the first line of Petofi's poem, Nemzeti Dal (Song of the Nation), and easy to spell wink.gif :
"Talpra magyar!"

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dead-cat March 18, 2010 12:08 pm
thank you. apparently it was well received biggrin.gif

Posted by: 21 inf March 19, 2010 07:32 pm
Talpra magyar means "Sus, maghiare!". It is a part of a liric from a famous poem called Nemzeti dal, written by slav origin hungarian Petofi Sandor (Alexander Petrovici in his birth certificate), one of the promoter of hungarian revolution and one of those who was a fierce enemy of romanians.

One can find below the poem in hungarian original language and the translation in english.

Nemzeti dal

Talpra magyar, hí a haza!
Itt az idő, most vagy soha!
Rabok legyünk vagy szabadok?
Ez a kérdés, válasszatok! –
A magyarok istenére
Esküszünk, hogy rabok tovább
Nem leszünk!

Rabok voltunk mostanáig,
Kárhozottak ősapáink,
Kik szabadon éltek-haltak,
Szolgaföldben nem nyughatnak.
A magyarok istenére
Esküszünk, hogy rabok tovább
Nem leszünk!

Sehonnai bitang ember,
Ki most, ha kell, halni nem mer,
Kinek drágább rongy élete,
Mint a haza becsülete.
A magyarok istenére
Esküszünk, hogy rabok tovább
Nem leszünk!

The National Song

On your feet, Magyar, the homeland calls!
The time is here, now or never!
Shall we be slaves or free?
This is the question, choose your answer! -
By the God of the Hungarians
We vow,
We vow, that we will be slaves
No longer!

We were slaves up til now,
Damned are our ancestors,
Who lived and died free,
Cannot rest in a slave land.
By the God of the Hungarians
We vow,
We vow, that we will be slaves
No longer!

Useless villain of a man,
Who now, if need be, doesn't dare to die,
Who values his pathetic life greater
Than the honor of his homeland.
By the God of the Hungarians
We vow,
We vow, that we will be slaves
No longer!

Posted by: ANDREAS March 19, 2010 10:34 pm
Very good 21 inf,
I appreciate the translation which is very interesting! From the stories of my history teacher from high school, this poem was often associated with revisionist hungarian propaganda anti-Trianon (as child he was living in Bihor county, somewhere near Salonta, so he lived the cession of northern Transylvania in 1940) in the '40s, and more recently in the '90s, but this doesn't mean that the poetry bears some blame from that.

Posted by: contras March 19, 2010 11:19 pm
Thank you, 21 inf, for your translation. It is very instructive, after all.

Posted by: Dénes March 20, 2010 07:42 am
Thank you, 21inf, for posting the poem also in English, so everyone can understand it.

Nemzeti Dal is not a simple poem, it's at the core of Hungarian mentiality and self-awarness. Due to this paramount importance, I started my book on the Royal Hungarian Army, published in Prague, Czech Republic [see:] with this very poem (in both languages).

Here is what I've written about this poem in the preamble of the aforementioned book: "The national importance of the poem ‘Nemzeti dal’ (Song of the Nation) – reverberating even today throughout the whole Hungarian nation, which comprises all ethnic Magyars within Hungary’s borders and abroad, regardless of their current citizenships – wrote by the Magyars’ most prominent national poet, Sándor Petöfi, on the eve of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, can be compared to the meaning of what 'La Marseillaise' has for the French people."

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dénes March 20, 2010 07:53 am
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 20, 2010 01:32 am)
written by slav origin hungarian Petofi Sandor (Alexander Petrovici in his birth certificate)

Petofi was of slavic origin as much as the Rumanians' national poet Mihai(l) Eminescu (born Eminovici) was. wink.gif
By the way, his family name, at birth, was Petrovics, not Petrovici.

Of paramount importance to understand him is that Petofi was not only a brilliant and prolific poet, but also a revolutionary, a patriot and warrior, who died in battle against the Russians, near Segesvar (Sighisoara, Schäßburg), Central Transylvania, when only 26.

As for Petofi being anti-Rumanian, can you give us some proof? I haven't read anything in his writings backing this allegation.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dead-cat March 20, 2010 10:12 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 20, 2010 08:53 am)
[QUOTE=21 inf,March 20, 2010 01:32 am]
As for Petofi being anti-Rumanian, can you give us some proof? I haven't read anything in his writings backing this allegation.

Gen. Dénes

nor did I. we even had some of Petöfis poems back in school.

Posted by: 21 inf March 20, 2010 11:05 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 20, 2010 07:53 am)
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 20, 2010 01:32 am)
written by slav origin hungarian Petofi Sandor (Alexander Petrovici in his birth certificate)

Petofi was of slavic origin as much as the Rumanians' national poet Mihai(l) Eminescu (born Eminovici) was. wink.gif
By the way, his family name, at birth, was Petrovics, not Petrovici.

Yes, his birth certificate stated his name as Petrovics, not Petrovici, it was my tipo fault.

His parents were of serb and slovac origins, so Petofi was not hungarian born ethnic. Anyway, even if so, I didnt intented to be malicious, just stated a known fact. It is Petofi's problem if he wanted to declare himself hungarian, despite his slavic roots.

It is not the case of Eminescu's parents, who were romanian ethnics, with slavised family name (Eminovici), wich is in use even nowadays to some romanians living in Ukraine or Bessarabia.

The greatest biographer of Eminescu, great scholar G. Calinescu, debated his origins, showing that Eminescu was romanian, eliminating with proves the acusations that Eminescu was turkish, armenian, polish, ukrainian or whatsoever some told during time.

The same slavic origins as Petofi (slovac) had the leader of hungarian revolution, Kossuth Lajos. His family, altough having a small hungarian nobility title, was of slovac origins. The name of Kossuth's mother was Karoline Weber, of german descendents. The uncle of Kossuth, Juraj Košút, was a strong slovac patriot and nationalist, as some (not me) are saying. Kossuth Lajos considered himself hungarian and acted acordingly during his life.

This info are only for the record, not being intended to create "waves". If this info are wrong, it would be for everybody's benefit to be corected, for a better understanding of common hungarian-romanian events from 1848-1849.

Posted by: Dénes March 20, 2010 03:03 pm
This whole debate of someone's ethnic roots is irrelevant.
One is whatever he/she declares he/she is and acts accordingly.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf March 20, 2010 06:00 pm
What one consider him/herself to be, it's his/her own problem. If Petofi and Kossuth were of slovac origins, but declared themselfes hungarians, I dont care, as I said before. It's just historical reality and information.

Also only for historical acuracy, from all 13 generals from hungarian army from 1848-1849 only a few were hungarians by born. The others (most of them) were other nationalities which joined hungarian army. I also dont care what they considered themselfes.

But for historical acuracy, when celebrated at Arad, Romania, each year, it would be corect to be said about (at least for a part of) them that they were generals in hungarian army, not hungarian generals, just for the care not to be confused that austrians executed 13 high ranking hungarians: austrians executed a number of austrians, germans, a serb, a croat-turkish, at least one of romanian roots and some hungarians who joined hungarian army in 1848. Some of the 13 generals were previously profesional soldiers in austrian army and were executed by austrians (as stated in their death sentences) for breaking their oath as soldiers for the austrian emperor and fighting for a foreign armed force.

I say again that I dont want to heat the spirits, I am only curious how one of other origin as hungarian can join with so enthusiasm to a national revolution, not only for freedom purposes. And if this revolution was really for freedom purposes, why to fight other nations as serbs, croats, romanians and others and not only with austrians and eventually with russians? Serbs, croats, romanians and other nations from 1848-1849 wanted only their own freedom, they wanted as much as hungarians to be free of austrian rule.

Posted by: dead-cat March 20, 2010 11:55 pm
apparently the hungarian cause appealed to many back then, to a degree that some choose to become hungarians. the germans in banat were also divided on the issue.

Posted by: Dénes March 21, 2010 10:20 am
That's exacty the point. The ideals of revolution, liberty and independent statehood appealed to many people, irrespective of their ethnicity (including most Rumanians from mainland Hungary and some from Transylvania). That's why they joined the Hungarian Revolution (even if some were not Hungarian ethnics), fought and many died for it"s ideals.

When talking about an army, one should not mix ethnicity with the uniform the soldiers wear. Everyone enrolled in a particular army is a soldier of that country. For example, when I was drafted in the Rumanian army, I wasn't a Hungarian soldier, but a Rumanian one, wasn't I?

This having been said, the martyr Generals executed by the Austrians near Arad you are referring to were Hungarian Generals, not by their ethnicity, but by their loyalty and paid the ultimate price for it. Questioning this is rather preposterous.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf March 21, 2010 11:07 am
It would be great if those generals executed at Arad would be remembered as hungarian generals, not as hungarian ethnics.

Denes, can you detail a little more about the most romanians from mainland Hungary who adhered to hungarian revolution? And about the few from Transylvania who did the same? I refere only by those who joined hungarian revolution by free will, not drafted by force. In romanian books there are virtually no reference about them, at least from my knowledge.

In romanian history works there are speaking only about hungarians who adhered to romanian transylvanian revolution and one have to recognise that their number was very small. Those transylvanian hungarians adhered to romanian revolution by personal reasons and hardly can be considered as a general intention. Only those who make propaganda can consider a big deal their joining to romanian landsturm.

It will be usefull to know this aspects in order to learn more about 1848-1849 revolutions, both hungarian (from Hungary and Transylvania) and romanian (from Transylvania).

Posted by: Dénes March 21, 2010 11:29 am
There is a detailed article (in Hungarian) on, which I found objective and to the point:
Please read it as many of your questions have answers, and, if possible, post a synopsis here for those who cannot read it.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf March 21, 2010 02:22 pm
Well, I readed the whole article with great interess and atention and I found it full of inadvertencies, not to say heavier words. The guy who wrote it had to read considerably more on the subject of hungarian revolution, I mean the parts regarding the involvement in events of other nations than hungarians.

In the case of romanians the author of the article shows a great dose of lack of knowledge, on one side, and on the other side, he make some alegations unsustained with the slightest prove.

The first case is when the author calls Avram Iancu a servant of Vienese Court, who stabbed hungarian revolution on the back, causing it's failure. Well, Avram Iancu had a limited political role in the period the author says, cos he himself was under the authority of Romanian National Council who was ordering him what to do. The role of Avram Iancu went significant and independent only after Sibiu felt in the hand of hungarian army and RNC had to flee to Wallachia. So, the acusation that Avram Iancu was austrian instrument has no basis. If one want to point the "head" of romanian revolution, he had to point the RNC, who was the political representant of romanian revolutionars.

The author didnt convinced me with the statement that romanians from Hungary and Transylvania joined in great number and by free will or enthusiasm the hungarian cause. He just says it, without any proof.

Also, he says that at the begining romanians recognised the union of Transylvania with Hungary, which is an afirmation or insuficient researched by him, or bad intented. Romanians never agreed such an union, in fact they oposed it on their all national gatherings. The romanian delegation sent together with saxon delegation to transylvanian Diet from Cluj in 1848 had the mision to state the oposition of romanians to such a union. When the saxon delegation said in plenary the same statement oposing union, they were threatened by hungarian delegates, put outside the building by force, together with romanian delegation, force to take hungarian flags in hands and to cry out loud that they agree with the union. Romanian delegation did the same, fearing for their lives. This is not my personal afirmation, it is what I studied in numerous romanian history books, having as primary source the declaration of the romanian delegates who were there on that time.

Actually, on Blaj, romanians stated that they want the union with "the country", by country meaning Romania, even if on that time Romania didnt existed yet. Romanian grenzinfanterie regiments refused to change austrian flags with hungarian ones and joined romanian revolutionaries, training Legion XII and XIII from romanian Landsturm (militia).

There are plenty of examples on the article which maximise the bad intentions of nationalities (recognised or not) from Hungary and Transylvania and minimise the faults of hungarian side. If one wants to debate on them, I am very open to discuss the matters, on request, on this topic, which I consider growing interesantly and with benefits, even if not every post brings a both side agreement, at least yet. smile.gif

So, unfortunatelly, with all my kindness and good intention to listen the other side too, I have to say that the article is unreliable, at best.

PS: the coments posted on this article are far more pertinent and well documented (and they are written also by hungarians).

Posted by: contras March 24, 2010 09:31 pm
Thank you, 21 inf, you put it better than I can say about it.

Posted by: 21 inf March 26, 2010 09:07 pm
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 20, 2010 06:00 pm)
What one consider him/herself to be, it's his/her own problem. If Petofi and Kossuth were of slovac origins, but declared themselfes hungarians, I dont care, as I said before. It's just historical reality and information.

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

Posted by: dead-cat March 26, 2010 11:18 pm
i fail to see the point. is this an accusation that Petöfi chose to be a hungrian?

Posted by: 21 inf March 27, 2010 03:15 am
QUOTE (dead-cat @ March 26, 2010 11:18 pm)
i fail to see the point. is this an accusation that Petöfi chose to be a hungrian?

Did I acused Petofi about that?? blink.gif

Posted by: 21 inf March 27, 2010 03:39 am
The prefects (generals) of romanian Landsturm Legions:

I Legion "Blasiana" (or "Blajeana") - Axente Sever

II Legion "Auraria Gemina" - Avram Iancu

III Legion "de Campie" - Vasile Macariu Moldovan

V Legion "de Campie" - Vasile Turcu (KIA)

VI Legion "Submontana" - Petru Dobra (KIA)

XII Legion "Mures" - Constantin Romanu Vivu (KIA)

Legion "Zarandului" - Ioan Buteanu (KIA), eventually Mihai Andreica

Legion "Auraria et Salinae" (or "Ariesului") - Simion Balint

Legion "Campestre" (or "de Campie") - Nicolae Vladutiu

Legion "de Cluj" - Alexandru Batraneanu (KIA), followed by Florian Micas, eventually Ioan Botianu

Legion "Abrudului" - Mihai Andreica

Legion "Sebesului" - Dionisiu Pop Martian

Legion "Erbacina" - Juniu Eliseu Armatu

Legion "Sibiului" - Ioan Jovian Brad, eventually Ioan Brote

Legion "Hunedoarei" - Nicolae Solomon

Legion "Tara Barsei si a Fagarasului" - Ioan Brad Lemeny, Ioan Jovian Brad

Note that the number of legions never came oficially, it is only an atempt to number them acording to some books consulted, other may show diferent numerotation. These are the projected legions, not all of them went reality due to fightings which leaded to the ocupation of their recruiting areas. Some legions went to reality and were very active, as it was Legion Auraria Gemina, Auraria et Salinae, Campestre etc.

Posted by: Dénes March 27, 2010 08:16 am
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 27, 2010 03:07 am)
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 20, 2010 06:00 pm)
What one consider him/herself to be, it's his/her own problem. If Petofi and Kossuth were of slovac origins, but declared themselfes hungarians, I dont care, as I said before. It's just historical reality and information.

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

I also fail to see the point. dry.gif
Both Kossuth and Petofi were born in the Kingdom of Hungary, and as far as I know they did not change their religions, either. Therefore, they were no "Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa."

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf March 27, 2010 11:19 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 27, 2010 08:16 am)
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 27, 2010 03:07 am)
QUOTE (21 inf @ March 20, 2010 06:00 pm)
What one consider him/herself to be, it's his/her own problem. If Petofi and Kossuth were of slovac origins, but declared themselfes hungarians, I dont care, as I said before. It's just historical reality and information.

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

I also fail to see the point. dry.gif
Both Kossuth and Petofi were born in the Kingdom of Hungary, and as far as I know they did not change their religions, either. Therefore, they were no "Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa."

Gen. Dénes

Well, if so, good for them.

Posted by: dead-cat March 27, 2010 11:51 am
i still don't see the point. if that "renegade" thing is not an accusation, what is the point of explaining the definition?

Posted by: 21 inf March 27, 2010 07:55 pm
Well, for some people may count, even not for some.

Posted by: 21 inf April 03, 2010 06:25 pm
Here can be read, in an impresive collection of documents regarding 1848 revolution from diferent part of Eastern Europe, Hungary and Transylvania, the details about Romanian National Gathering from Blaj, at page 132 (search facility) or page 123 (on original, on book). At the pointed link can be readed what was declared by romanians at their national gathering, and it is clear as the sun that they oposed openly to the union of Transylvania with Hungary. Other points about romanian revolutionary programe are very clear also.

In this set of documents it is also very interesting to be read the declaration of serbs toward romanians, for it's friendly content.

Most of documents are in hungarian language in this volume, very few are in german and covers the period of early 1848-late 1849 and the subjects are the hungarians, austrians, romanians, croats, italians, serbs and others.

Posted by: Dénes April 04, 2010 09:33 am
QUOTE (21 inf @ April 04, 2010 12:25 am)
it is clear as the sun that they oposed openly to the union of Transylvania with Hungary. Other points about romanian revolutionary programe are very clear also.

If you read carefully and properly understand the hard-to-read archaic Hungarian language used by the important source you mentioned, it is clear that the 16-point official petition (see page 128 and 129, footnote) drafted after the Blaj Meeting calls for equality among all nations living in Transylvania, among others, and something what we would nowadays call local/regional autonomy.
As for the union of Transylvania with Hungary, the petition calls in point 16 (page 129, bottom) for this topic to be discussed only after the Rumanian representatives in the Parliament are elected and present at the discussions. That's all.
There is no mention in the official petition that the Transylvanian Rumanians did not want the Union (with Hungary), only that they want to be part of the discussions, presumably to obtain as many rights as possible, including equal rights with the Hungarians and Saxons, and autonomy in the regions where they were the majority.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf April 04, 2010 11:04 am
Well, first of all, let's concentrate on the main body of text, which presents the facts as they were, being original documents, not at the foot notes, which represents the opinion of editor. Let's not evade the main informations.

So, at page 116, regarding the first day of Romanian National Gathering from Blaj from 3/15 may, it is said on point 1b:

A roman nemzet nyilatkozott, hogy orokre allando hive akar maradni a felseges ausztriai csaszarnak, Erdely Nagy-Fejedelmek, es a felseges ausztriai haznak.

Translation into english:

The romanian nation declares, that wants to remain forever subject of austrian emperor, of Transylvania Great Princeps (principe in romanian) and the House of Austria.

So, this is the first declaration against union of Transylvania with Hungary, which was stated at the last point of hungarian revolutionary declaration from 15 march 1848.

No one said that generally romanians didnt wanted the same as all revolutionary nations from Europe (page 117, point 1 of the declaration): liberty, equality, fraternity. But particulary, romanians had some demands, in order that this principles to be real: the first of all, recognition as a nation, because back in 1848 they were not recognised as a nation in Transylvania. So, point 1c from the same first RNG from Blaj says (page 116):

A roman nemzet onallo nemzetnek nyilatkoztatta magat,...

Translation into english:

Romanian nation declares itself as being independent,...

The oath of romanians at first RNG from Blaj is toward austrian emperor, not to Hungary, so it is clear that romanians didnt adhered to the hungarian proclamed union of Transylvania with Hungary. The oath says that romanians will respect all the other nations from Transylvania and that they will not atack the other nations, but also romanians will not tolerate to be bad treated by others.

The flags of Austria (black and yellow) and romanian (blue, red and white) (sic!) were present at this RNG.

The union of Transylvania with Hungary was put aside from discussion at the second day of RNG from Blaj, 4/16 may 1848, because it was considered that such a subject can be discussed only when romanians will be properly represented in the goverment, because only in the parliament can be righteously decided on this matter (page 117, first paragraph, second sentence).

One can just imagine that when romanians acceded to parliament acording to percentage of population that they represented in Transylvania, they could opose even the austrians, not only the hungarians. Because if so, they had the majority as being in 1848 about 1,5 milion romanians, about 600.000 hungarians and 200.000 saxons in Transylvania. Hungarian nobles who were in parliament knew very well that this romanians wanted and feared the worse, of loosing power of decision in Transylvania. Union with Hungary would bring romanians in minority, unable to be represented as a numerical powerfull nation (at that time, in 1848, they were not recognised as nation, so they had no word in political matters), demolishing any hope to be represented acordingly.

Posted by: 21 inf April 04, 2010 11:22 am
Being back on the subject of recognition or not of union with Hungary, I believe that it is clear that putting an oath to austrian house and declared themselfes as austrian subjects, romanians were against union. Otherwise, they would quickly declare that they agree with union, isnt it?

Romanians, yes, stated that in 1848 that Transylvania should be a form of statal organisation as Switzerland, based on federation, but rejected the union (anyway, excepting a few counties, romanians were in huge majority; in another hungarian document of the work cited, hungarians state that in most counties they were in numerical inferiority, from 1 hungarian to 3 non-hungarian in Superior Alba county, to 1:7, 1:25, 1:35, 1:45 in other counties (later example from Fagaras county - megye - comitat) and these are only a few examples cited by this volume. Giving the small numbers of saxons, by non-hungarian were considered most presumably romanians, though this is not directly expressed, but couldnt be otherwise in lack of other nations, insignifiant as numbers in Transylvania. The few counties with hungarian majority were mainly the sekler ones and a few others.

Were in the hungarian revolutionary programe (not necesarily the one from 15 march 1848, can be later) are the romanians recognised as a nation (as they asked) and a principle of organisation of Transylvania as in Switzerland, ensuring a large democracy on the principles of liberty, equalty and fraternity? How can be equal with others, when one is not recognised at the same statute as the other?

Posted by: 21 inf April 04, 2010 11:56 am
And here is the protest of romanians against union, as they wanted to decide for themselfes:

Point 16 of RNG from Blaj (page 121):

Romanian nation asks the other nations from Transylvania not to discuss anything about the union with Hungary, until romanian nation will be not organised and represented with the power of decisional vote in the national gathering (orszaggyules) (of Transylvania - my note), and if contrary, the Diet of Transylvania will decide the union without romanians (de nobis sine nobis), than the romanian nation protest with solemnity.

Romanian version:

Punctul 16: Natiunea romana cere ca conlocuitoarele natiuni nicidecum sa nu ieie la dezbatere cauza uniunii cu Ungaria, pana cand natiunea romana nu va fi natiune constituita si organizata cu drept de vot deliberativ si decisiv in camera legislativa, iar dincontra, daca dieta Transilvaniei ar voi a se lasa totusi la pertractarea acelei uniuni fara noi, atunci natiunea romana protesteaza cu solemnitate.

Posted by: Dénes April 04, 2010 12:44 pm
Again, perhaps you are quoting a different source, or do not understand the text properly, but the Hungarian one you brought to attention literally says the following (I am referring to point 16 - which is not merely a footnote, but gives THE actual text of the official Petition adopted at Blaj):
"Az olah nemzet ohajtja, hogy az illeto nemzetek ne vegyek az unio kerdeset targyalas ala addig, mig az olah nemzet nem fog, mint alkotmanyos nemzet az orszaggyulesen kovetei altal kepviseltetni, ellenkezo esetben ovast teszen."
In English, literally: "The Vlach nation wishes that the (other) respective nations not to discuss the issue of the union (with Hungary) until the Vlach nation, as a constitutional nation, will not be represented in the Parliament by its delegates, in a contrary case it will issue an appeal" (text in brackets are mine). Nothing more, nothing less.
So, there is no word in this official text of numerical representation (I don't believe back then this was the norm), merely "representation" in the Parliament, among the other consituent nations of Transylvania.

As I said, repeatedly, in this forum (and elsewhere, too), when dealing with history hindsight can distort the historical truth and may lead to false conclusions.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf April 04, 2010 01:34 pm
I perfectly understand the hungarian version, which is not so far from my translation. You also translated very very close to my translation. I put also the romanian version, for comparison.

If hungarians of the time didnt understand what means representation of romanian nation, it is not my problem, but I believe that romanian sources from the time are perfectly clear regarding what means their representation. Hungarians failed to comply or didnt wanted to comply with the idea of romanians being represented (numerical or not).

So, I dont think there is a false conclusion of mine, when dealing with history hindsight; maybe people of the time didnt uderstand the historical meaning of the momentum, being them hungarians, romanians or others.

At least for the subject which determined the civil war of 1848-1849 from Transylvania, maybe hungarian rulers of this province failed to understand the significance of romanian wishes or didnt wanted to understand them (in 16 august 1846 baron Wesseleny wrote to Kossuth: "if the thousands of nobles should loose their fortunes, and their nationality should be gone, the most part of the milions which would replace them, will be not hungarian", so they were aware of the situation in Transylvania). (source: Silviu Dragomir, Studii si documente privitoare la revolutia romanilor din Transilvania in anii 1848-1849, V, Cluj, pag. 14, 1966).

Linked with the subject of understanding history, could one explain why all nations (serbs, romanians, croats, saxons, slovacs and others) fought hungarians, when all declared the same revolutionary principles? Why all fought hungarians and not each other? Why they didnt allowed hungarians to fight austrians and just sit to crop the fruits of the results? (I dont "buy" the explanation that all were lied by austrians, because they had the political meanings to do so, but they didnt do it).

Also, see the letter of serbs sent to romanians, same link as indicated above.

Posted by: 21 inf April 04, 2010 10:51 pm
QUOTE (21 inf @ April 04, 2010 11:22 am)
Were in the hungarian revolutionary programe (not necesarily the one from 15 march 1848, can be later) are the romanians recognised as a nation (as they asked) and a principle of organisation of Transylvania as in Switzerland, ensuring a large democracy on the principles of liberty, equalty and fraternity?

Still no answer for the question quoted.

Posted by: 21 inf April 05, 2010 06:02 am
Hungarian declaration of independence, April 1849, in english

Almost one year after the first RNG from Blaj and several months after the last one, still there is no word about romanian rights and recognision. More than that, the declaration says that:

"The most painful aggression took place in Transylvania, for the traitorous commander in that district did not content himself with the practices considered lawful in war by disciplined troops. He stirred up the Wallachian peasants to take up arms against their own constitutional rights, and, aided by the rebellious Servian hordes, commenced a course of Vandalism and extraction..."

The "traitorous commander" was the comanding oficer of austrian troops from Transylvania, who declared his loyalty, of course, to austrian emperor. Why is he considered traitor...?

Wallachian peasants took arms against their own constitutional rights? Which constitutional rights? Those given to an unrecognised and unrepresented nation? The constitution which romanians didnt recognised because they didnt recognised the union of Transylvania with Hungary? The constitutional rights which made them free of being serfs (iobagi) only if they accepted union with Hungary?

These are only a few questions raised after reading the declaration of indepence, among many other questions...

Posted by: ANDREAS April 06, 2010 04:20 pm
Christ is Risen! 21 inf,
and congratulations for the translations posted! They are indeed very interesting!
Continue on the same direction and at least I thank you for the documents translations!
Well done!

Posted by: 21 inf April 23, 2010 07:46 pm
Facts about romanian revolution in Transylvania wrote austrian captain W. Bichman and were translated in romanian and published in Gazeta Transilvaniei in 1883. I will put a few lines here in romanian, as I cant translate into english the specific romanian language of the era.

"La început gloatele nu aveau deloc tunuri. Dar în curând le succese a-şi procura prin speculaţiune şi prin spiritul lor invenţios, fireşte în modul cel mai primitiv. Astea erau tunuri de lemn, adică trunchi de arbori, mai ales de cireşi, găuriţi, căptuşite (bucite, ghintuite) cu tinichea şi legate cu cercuri de fier. De încărcături serveau pietri şi gloanţe (ghiulele) de fier de diferite grosimi şi greutăţi. Lafetele constau dintr-un fel de capre de lemn. Câteva tunuri de acestea le cuceriră maghiarii, dar le pierdură la ruşi, care le trimiseră ca raritate la Petropole. Fiindcă gloatele nu erau defel deprinse în umblarea cu tunurile, pentru aceea vânătorii de munte obişnuiau a ţinti mai întâi cu puşca rezemată pe tun şi a îndrepta tunul după aceasta. În primăvara anului 1849, românii erau aşa de înaintaţi în fabricarea de tunuri încât ei turnară în Câmpeni 2 piese de câte două punţi".

For the english speakers, it would be great if someone will translate the above quotation.

Posted by: 21 inf April 25, 2010 05:31 pm
Captain W. Bichman, austrian, in 1883 publishing in Gazeta Transilvaniei about moţi, what he learned in his interviews in 1870's about the events of 1848-1849 years: (unfortunatelly in romanian only, as I cant translate into english the specific romanian language of the era; help wanted for translation, being wellcomed).

"Moţii se deosebesc în multe privinţe esenţial de fraţii lor de la şes. În loc de supunere, care în genere o întâmpinăm la aceştia, Moţii manifestă, ca toate popoarele muntene iubitoare de libertate, la înfăţişarea lor o puternică conştiinţă de sine, însoţită de o cerbicie posomorâtă. Moţii treceau şi la maghiari, inamicii lor de moarte, de un popor tare sălbatic, brutal, crud, greu de guvernat.

Moţul este ignorant, superstiţios, neîncrezător şi după ideile civilizaţiei posedă noţiuni încă foarte neclare de proprietate şi de drept. Cu toate acestea domneşte în ţara lui multă siguranţă publică. Drept dovadă la aceasta serveşte împrejurarea, că nici poşta, nici alte spediţiuni de aur sau de argint din orăşelele muntene, la monetăria din Alba Iulia, n-au fost niciodată atacate. Deşi Moţul este puţin primitor de reforme şi deşi ţine morţiş la obiceiurile strămoşilor săi, trăind în sărăcie şi în cumpătare, totuşi el posedă multă abilitate (îndemânare) naturală şi un mare talent de imitaţiune. Pe lângă aceasta este el cutezător, întreprinzător şi dispreţuieşte moartea."

Posted by: Agarici April 25, 2010 06:28 pm
21 inf, congratulations for your work!

As armament they had mainly tools from around the house: axes, forks, “coase indreptate” (translation will be welcomed), “lanci”, with a few fire weapons: pistols, hunting rifles; some military rifles (in bad shape) were supplied by Austrian army from its warehouses from Alba Iulia and Deva, and those rifles were distribuited mainly to Legio Auraria Gemina.
Motzii had some artillery, consisting on some little iron canons and some handcrafted wooden guns (made from cherish and "frasin" wood). Powder and bullets were supplied (in small quantity) by Austrian army, the rest of the quantity was from spoiles of war.

A small help: "coasa indreptata" = war scythe. They were widely used by Romanian irregulars starting with the Middle Ages (a fact documented by many authors), as well as by the Polish militia ("cosinieri", in Romanian) in many notable instances during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries (see for example here: )

Posted by: 21 inf April 25, 2010 06:30 pm
Battle of Sântioana, near Reghin, 31 october 1848 (published in Gazeta Transilvaniei, 1899).

The battle was described by the commander of the reserve batalion from the force commanded by vice-colonel Carol Urban, imperial army. The commander of the reserve batalion was romanian and published this war memories in 1899 in Gazeta Transilvnaiei, under a fake (pseudonim) name.

In 31 october 1848, in the town of Reghin the drums and trumpets rang the allarm, as a column of hungarian insurgents advanced on Mures valley, from Ghernesig village towards Şapartoc and town of Reghin. Troops, infantry, cavalry and romanian militia were asembled, in the intention to get out from the town. Marching order was commander Urban and his second on comand, lieutenant Storch, followed by a squadron of Chevaux legeres, and at last, the infantry, both regulars and romanian militia. Saxon militia from Reghin, armed with doubled barrel hunting rifles, went into position outside town, on the nearest hill, covered with wine plantation. In the morning of 31 october 1848, v-c. Urban sent as forward guard a force consisting from 1 company of romanian Grezinfanterie an 1 company of bukovinian grenzers ("cordonieri" in romanian language), to meet the enemy at Şapartoc. This 2 companies didnt engaged enemy, withdrew toward Sântioana and joined the bulk of the troops before the fight broke out.

Being in front of all, romanian comander of reserve batalion, captured a hungarian spy, who, life-threatened, discovered the position of hungarian troops, in a large valley westward, while a smaller hungarian troop was hiden nearby, in the gardens. Two Chevaulegers sent by v-c. Urban killed the spy on the spot, returning the romanian comander to the bulk of the troops. V-c. Urban didnt take acount about information provided by the killed hungarian spy, but ordered forward toward the big valley, ignoring that the hungarian troops might indeed being positioned there.

From the woods emerged one or two squadrons of hungarian hussars, while from the bigger valley emerged one row of szekler infantry, in battle formation as tiraliors. The imperial troops were disposed like this: 1 romanian grenzinfanterie companie and 1 bukovinian grenz companie in the center deployed as tiraliors to face the szekler infantry, v-c. Urban and l. Storch with 1 cavalry squadron, behind this deploying the reserves. On the right wing of imperial troops, far away, near Breţcu village was romanian militia consisting of pikemen (lăncieri) led by Vasile Moldovan, and on the far left was a smaller unit of romanian militia consisting of pikemen.

The two enemy lines of tiraliors advance toward each other, while shooting permanently. The imperial cavalry and reserve force followed the tiralior line step by step in their advance toward enemy. After half an hour of advancing and shooting, szekler infantry changed tactics and started a slow retreat toward the big valley, keeping to fire against imperials. Szekelers were followed by imperials and when the imperial cavalry and reserve arived to the smaller valley neighboured by the gardens, the szekelrs hiden in the gardens fired a volley on the imperials, puting them into crossed fire, now from front and from the left. V-c. Urban, realising at last that he felt in a trap, instead pushing forward his reserve, ordered imediat retreat, leaving the first 2 companies engaged from front and left by enemy fire, on their own. The 2 companies engaged by enemy tiraliors, broke the lines and fought with bullets, bayonets and hand-to-hand, each man for his own life, runing after the bulk of Urban forces.

Urban lost the fight, having 36 men dead, wounded or missing. Hungarian losses are unknown. Hungarian sources claim no losses at all, while imperial eyewitneses and participants to the battle confirm a number of insurgents killed or wounded, altough their number remain unknown.

Posted by: 21 inf April 27, 2010 03:26 pm
Regarding the cannons of romanian militia, authors Melinda Mitu and Ovidiu Muntean, in their bilingual romanian-english book "Rememorand revolutia 1848-2008; Remember the revolution 1848-2008", edited in 2008 by Muzeul de Istorie al Transilvaniei, says that one small caliber cannon which use to belong to Auraria Gemina Legion led by Avram Iancu, was named "Decebal". The cannon was preserved initially by Muzeul de Relicve ale Revolutiei de la 1848-49 (1848-49-es Orszagos Ereklye Muzeum) from Cluj, established by hungarians, nowadays the cannon belong to the collections of Muzeul National de Istorie from Bucharest.

Posted by: contras April 27, 2010 07:45 pm
Thank you, 21 inf, for all your efforts. Do you know if that cannon can be seen at this museum? Do you have any photos about this?

Posted by: Lup_Alb April 27, 2010 08:26 pm
"La început gloatele nu aveau deloc tunuri. Dar în curând le succese a-şi procura prin speculaţiune şi prin spiritul lor invenţios, fireşte în modul cel mai primitiv. Astea erau tunuri de lemn, adică trunchi de arbori, mai ales de cireşi, găuriţi, căptuşite (bucite, ghintuite) cu tinichea şi legate cu cercuri de fier. De încărcături serveau pietri şi gloanţe (ghiulele) de fier de diferite grosimi şi greutăţi. Lafetele constau dintr-un fel de capre de lemn. Câteva tunuri de acestea le cuceriră maghiarii, dar le pierdură la ruşi, care le trimiseră ca raritate la Petropole. Fiindcă gloatele nu erau defel deprinse în umblarea cu tunurile, pentru aceea vânătorii de munte obişnuiau a ţinti mai întâi cu puşca rezemată pe tun şi a îndrepta tunul după aceasta. În primăvara anului 1849, românii erau aşa de înaintaţi în fabricarea de tunuri încât ei turnară în Câmpeni 2 piese de câte două punţi".

Aproximative translation:

At first the militia ("the mob" in text) doesn't have cannons at all. But soon they succeded to obtain some, trough speculations and their imaginative spirit, of course in a most primitive way. Those were wooden cannons, namely tree trunks, mostly cherry, hollow bored (drilled), lined with tin (could also mean that they were lined with sheet metal, not necessarily tin) and bounded with iron hoops. As loading (projectiles) they used stones and iron bullets (iron cannon balls) of different sizes and weights.
The carriages were like a wooden saw buck (or saw horse). Some of those cannons were captured by the hungarians, but they lost them to the russians, who sended them as rarities (or curiosities) to Petropole (Petersburg probably). Because the militia weren't accustomed at all to aim a cannon ("to go about cannons" in text), for that the hunters aimed first with a rifle propped (probably held by the cannon barrel) on the cannon and align the cannon after it. In the spring of 1849, the romanians were so advanced in the fabrication of cannon that they casted in Câmpeni 2 pieces of two-pounders (probably bronze cannons shoting with 2 pounds balls).

Posted by: 21 inf April 30, 2010 06:41 pm
To contras: On the net i didnt found any pics about genuine wood "moţ" cannons. I have to scan one from the books I have, but it will take a while.

To Lup Alb: Thanks for the translation!

Even today, moţii play their "national" music instrument, the "tulnic" (or bucium; or alphorn in english). It is used to remote "wireless" comunication and only the initiated knows what it is transmited with the help of the tulnic.

In 1848-1849 the tulnic was used also to comunicate different messages; it was used of course during battles, to signal aproach of enemy forces, to signal their movements and so on.

Hungarian soldiers who fought in Apuseni Mountain area agaisnt moţi remembered the sound of this musical instrument, and for them was a bad sign to hear it, meaning that moţii are aware about their presence in the area and they could atack. Since XIXth century, practically there it is no change in the way of playing the tulnic, so those who wants to hear how a tulnic sounds, and how it sounded during fightings of 1848-1849, can listen it by accesing the links bellow. One is a specific tulnic call from Ţara Moţilor, the second one has it's title "The call of Avram Iancu". Enjoy!

And this is how a tulnic looked like, manned by a woman (men rarely played it):

Their dimension varied, from smaller ones, to those of 3 meters long. Mine, which I have it at my home, like all my moţi ancestors, has 1,5 meters long.

Posted by: 21 inf November 20, 2010 04:23 pm
First battle for Abrud, early May 1849

Second battle for Abrud, mid May 1849

Third battle for Abrud, mid June 1849

Fântânele battle, early July 1849

Posted by: 21 inf December 20, 2010 05:42 am
Siege of Timisoara

Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2010 06:31 am
Although I am not an expert in this time period, I found the description of the events well written and balanced.
A bit more background to why the siege was lifted when the fall of the fortress and city was within days would help better understanding the events.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf December 23, 2010 05:48 pm
Thanks, Denes! I will develop the general situation in another article and I'll link it with the above one.

Another article, the fight from Târnava, Hunedoara county, 8 november 1848.

Posted by: Dénes December 24, 2010 08:12 am
The only issue with the initial topic is how relevant it is to 'Enciclopedia României', as the described events were not connected to either Rumania, or the Rumanians.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2010 09:02 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ December 24, 2010 10:12 am)
The only issue with the initial topic is how relevant it is to 'Enciclopedia României', as the described events were not connected to either Rumania, or the Rumanians.

Gen. Dénes

I'm afraid I didn't understand what you mean.

Posted by: MMM December 24, 2010 09:37 am
... because the participants were "not" Rumanian, but Transylvanian, I guess...
Or because the "white flag" trick, maybe?! tongue.gif

Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2010 10:39 am
QUOTE (MMM @ December 24, 2010 11:37 am)
... because the participants were "not" Rumanian, but Transylvanian, I guess...
Or because the "white flag" trick, maybe?! tongue.gif

There is no such thing as "Transylvanians", at least from romanian point of view. There are only romanians from Transylvania and hungarians from Transylvania, as well as there are romanians from Moldavia and Wallachia and hungarians from Hungary, regarding 1848-1849 events. There were different revolutions in 1848 for hungarians from Hungary and those from Transylvania, each of them with their own programs, of course mainly the same, but there were 2. Also, for romanians, there were 3 revolutions in 1848: in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania.

The rest is only propaganda and an evident lack of will to see things as they are in reality.

Posted by: Dénes December 24, 2010 12:34 pm
QUOTE (21 inf @ December 24, 2010 03:02 pm)
QUOTE (Dénes @ December 24, 2010 10:12 am)
The only issue with the initial topic is how relevant it is to 'Enciclopedia României', as the described events were not connected to either Rumania, or the Rumanians.

Gen. Dénes

I'm afraid I didn't understand what you mean.

To be more clear: what I meant is that the siege of Temeschwar (Temesvár, Timişoara, Temišvar), fought between the Hungarian attackers and the Austrian defenders had nothing to do with Rumania, or the Rumanians. Therefore, this topic is not relevant to 'Enciclopedia României'.
Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2010 02:06 pm
At the first sight it seems indeed that the fight was between austrians and hungarians. But in the austrian army garisoned in Timisoara there were romanian origin soldiers, from the austrian border regiment of Banat and also a great number of drafted romanians from the suburbs of Timisoara and neighbouring villages. Please see the order of battle at "combatantii" section of the discussed article.

And Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Dénes December 24, 2010 02:42 pm
This has been already discussed before: in an army, the ethnicity/nationality of the individual soldier is irrelevant. What matters is only which flag he served under (IIRC, I gave my example: when I was drafted in the Rumanian Army, I wasn't a Hungarian soldier, but a Rumanian one). Therefore, your reasoning is invalid (with the same logic, all events where Rumanian ethnic soldiers fought - and in the XIXth Century/early XXth Century, with Rumanian ethnic soldiers drafted in the k.u.k. Armee, this happened practically all over Europe - must be mentioned then).
By contrast, the battles in the (current!) Hunedoara county, between Hungarian units vs. local Rumanian militia, you mentioned in your second post, are on topic.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Merry Christmas to all!

Posted by: dead-cat December 24, 2010 03:36 pm
what i have as source does not match the numbers given in that article.
while there is a consensus reagarding the number of austrian artillery pieces (213) and hungarian siege artillery (91), only about 9000 defenders are mentioned for the austrians. the about 11.000 hungarians represents only the corps Vecsey.
during the siege quite some troop movement has taken place on the hungarian side to del with various threats, most of which have remained hidden to the garrison at that time. therefore the number of the attackers varied greatly over the time.
for example near the conclusion of the siege, the entire hungarian force around Temesvar is mentioned at 59.000.

also the author mentions that after the capitulation of the Arad fortress (which increased the number of hungarian artillery as it freed the siege train) 595 romanian Grenzers joined the honved side and quotes in the same sentence the number of Grenzers in the Temesvar garrision at 1257.

also there might be a confusion regarding the austrian units. there was no "Rukavina Brigade" but a "Rukavina Regiment" (the austrian 61th) and a Leiningen brigade (and not a regiment) which might have served at Köngigsgräz in 1866 if it is the same unit.

hussar squadrons are also mentioned on the austrian side, however i saw nothing of mounted Grenzers.

while the 61th kuk was a mixed regiment, i haven't seen any record of romanians in the uhlan or hussar units, although it is unlikely that there were none.
during the siege civilians were recruted and used to manhandle artillery pieces and/or work on the defences. those probbly were the recruits from the nearby villages.

from "Die letzte Belagerung Temesvars", by Bela Schiff, Deutsche Buchdruckerei Temeswar, 1929.

he quotes extensively from journals and the notes of the mayor Johann Nepomuk Preyer.

Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2010 05:13 pm
@Denes: Yes, you are right if it would be the discussion about some individuals of romanian origin in austrian army. In this case is about a whole unit raised from romanian Banat ranks and this particular unit was praised by its deeds by the austrian commander at the end of the siege.

@dead-cat: The source I used is the report of the austrian commander of the fortress Timisoara, Georg Freiherr von Rukavina. 9.000 is the number he gave for the regular austrian army, the rest is made from recruits drafted in the last days before the siege started. He included the number of the recruits in the OOB he drawed. The same source indicates the number of hungarian soldiers only for the begining of the siege, mentioning that it was increasing during fightings, although not mentioning a final figure. G. von Rukavina might not be aware about all numebrs regarding the hungarian army who fought against him.

Horse grenzers are mentioned by Rukavina under the designation of "serezani", I mentioned them in the article.

Rukavina's OOB of his army is this one, breaked on units:
- 2 batalions from Sivkovich brigade:52 oficers, 2266 men, 770 recruits, 11 horses
- 2 batalions from Rukavina brigade: 34 oficers, 2282 men, 1913 recruits, 5 horses
- 1 batalion count Leiningen: 18 oficers, 1255 men, 764 recruits, 5 horses
- 1 batalion grenzers from Banat: 21 oficers, 1236 men, 986 recruits, 3 horses
- 3 companies from Zanini Regiment: 16 oficers, 320 men, 2 horses
Total: 141 oficers, 7359 men, 4433 recruits, 26 horses

- garison's artilery: 8 oficers, 96 men, 52 recruits
- detachments from 2nd and 5th Artilery Regiments: 2 oficers, 123 men, 2 recruits
- 1 detachment from Rocket Corp: 1 oficer, 20 men, 7 recruits
Total: 12 oficers, 239 men, 61 recruits

- 3 divisions of Schwartzenberg ulans: 29 oficers, 883 men, 814 horses
- 1 detachment from Archduke Maximilian, chevaux legere: 1 oficer, 73 men, 74 horses
Total: 30 oficers, 956 men, 888 horses

- 1 detachment: 1 oficer, 7 men, 273 horses
- 1 squadron of serezans (Serschanes in german in original): 1 oficer, 84 men, 85 horses

Grand total, including sapeurs (pioneers) and HQ oficers (not mentioned by me above): 4 generals, 188 oficers, 8659 men, 4494 recruits, 1272 horses.

Posted by: dead-cat December 24, 2010 05:54 pm
as the numbers are very close to what i have seen, the source is probably the same document, perhaps with some writing errors here and there that would account for the minimal differences.

the 2 battalions from the "Rukavina brigade" must be from the 61st. as there were parts of the 61st at Arad too, would explain why the units are not called 61st but the number of 2 batallions is explicitly given. the size does amount aproximatly 1 regiment so i wonder wether it was more than 1 company detached to Arad.
however, only 1 battalion might be from the 61st as i have seen mentioned (the 3rd) while the other 2 were campaigning with Haynau.
perhaps the regiment history of the 61st will shed some light on this. i hope to have enough spare time to consult the archive in vienna, since i was told they have it there. document mentions only the Schwartzenberg Uhlans as cavalry
(6 squadrons) which would be indeed 3 divisions.

Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2010 06:46 pm
Nice document, dead-cat. I wonder if you can help me pointing some internet site were I can check the nominal OOB of AH army in ww1, as I am looking for the units were my to ancestors were drafted. One felt POW to italians and the other one to russians. The first was from Salaj, the second from Arad county. The last returned home in 1921.

Are you interested also in the history of Nasaud grenzinfanterie regiment? I am interested in the relatively early history of the regiment, as romanian historians starting with Baritiu point that they were fighting at Arcole bridge against Napoleon, but it seems that all of them inspired from Karl Klein, an oficer from the regiment in 1840's, who doesnt indicate the source of his writings. The french sources doesnt show them at the bridge, nor the known austrian ones (with proves, indicating the primary source, because there are some famous austrian historians who wrote about it with no indication of the sources).

Posted by: bansaraba December 24, 2010 10:25 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ December 24, 2010 08:12 am)
The only issue with the initial topic is how relevant it is to 'Enciclopedia României', as the described events were not connected to either Rumania, or the Rumanians.

Gen. Dénes

The purpose of Enciclopedia Romaniei (The Encyclopedia of Romania) is to present, amongst other, the history of the lands that are or were part of Romania; to a lesser degree, the history of Romanians outside Romania proper. The Siege of Temeschwar is part of Timisoara's history, it cannot be omitted just because it lacks the involvement of Romanians.

In other news biggrin.gif, "Casa Muresenilor" museum in Brasov has a temporary exhibition about the Transylvanian revolution 1848-1849.

Posted by: dead-cat January 01, 2011 11:13 am
QUOTE (21 inf @ December 24, 2010 08:46 pm)
Nice document, dead-cat. I wonder if you can help me pointing some internet site were I can check the nominal OOB of AH army in ww1, as I am looking for the units were my to ancestors were drafted. One felt POW to italians and the other one to russians. The first was from Salaj, the second from Arad county. The last returned home in 1921.

Are you interested also in the history of Nasaud grenzinfanterie regiment? I am interested in the relatively early history of the regiment, as romanian historians starting with Baritiu point that they were fighting at Arcole bridge against Napoleon, but it seems that all of them inspired from Karl Klein, an oficer from the regiment in 1840's, who doesnt indicate the source of his writings. The french sources doesnt show them at the bridge, nor the known austrian ones (with proves, indicating the primary source, because there are some famous austrian historians who wrote about it with no indication of the sources).

i suppose you already know site.

i am generally intrested in the grenzer regiments, both from banat and transsylvania.

Posted by: 21 inf January 02, 2011 07:10 am
Yes, I know it smile.gif

Posted by: 21 inf January 05, 2011 08:10 pm

Old fighters from Romanian militia of Avram Iancu's army, photographed at Ţebea, Hunedoara county, 1919, at Avram Iancu's grave. They fought in 1848/1849 revolution in Transylvania. In 1919 they guarded Avram Iancu's grave until romanian army arived there. Photo copy given to me courtesy to National Military Museum, Bucharest.

Posted by: 21 inf April 08, 2011 05:17 pm
Moţ combatant from Auraria Gemina Legion, 1848-1849, comanded by Avram Iancu (reenactment, 2011).

Auraria Gemina Legion was raised from romanian villages above Câmpeni, Alba county. It was the only romanian militia unit which was not disbanded or destroyed by the enemy in combat. It fought 3 succesive (and succesfull) battles in Abrud, Alba county, in summer of 1849.

Posted by: 21 inf April 08, 2011 05:22 pm
Grenzer of romanian nationality, from Orlat, 1 Wallachische Grenzinfanterie Regiment, 1848-1849 revolution, fighting on the side of romanians (reenactment, 2010).

Posted by: 21 inf August 12, 2011 05:34 pm
Someone asked some time ago who provided military training to romanian transylvanian militia in 1848/1849. Here is one of them:][/URL]

New articles about 1848/1849 battles, cronologically

Poienari skirmish

Târnava skirmish (was posted months ago, but here for the sake of cronology of events)

Brad skirmish [URL=,_Hunedoara)],_Hunedoara)

Posted by: 21 inf September 09, 2011 05:53 pm
Update about general Ghe. Adrian, who's biography I posted above: he was captured by hungarian troops entering Abrud in 6th of May 1848 and held captive until romanian militia liberated him after the first battle from Abrud, which ended on 10th of May 1848. (testimony of fellow prisonier Vasile Macariu Moldovan, prefect of Legiunea de Câmpie, published in 1875)

Legion Blasiana (Legiunea Blasiana)

Legion Auraria Gemina (Legiunea Auraria Gemina)

Legion Mureş (Legiunea Mureş)ş

If I'll have time, I'll wrote also a article about Legiunea de Câmpie.

Posted by: ionionescu September 11, 2011 07:11 pm
21 inf, nice work, thanks for your articles.

Posted by: 21 inf September 30, 2011 06:55 pm
Memories of Arthur Gorgey about 1848 revolution in Transilvania (and Hungary), english language here:

He has a few sentences about "moţi".

I also found memories of Klapka, Czecz, and Csutak Kalman (the last two in german and, respectively, hungarian language).

Czecz Janos fought in Transylvania in 1848/49 and sought refuge in Argentina after 1848 revolution. He became the founder of modern argentinian army.

Posted by: 21 inf November 12, 2011 08:53 am
@Denes: can you translate "vetágyu" from hungarian in romanian, please? I tried online hungarian-romanian dictionary but no results.

Posted by: Dénes November 12, 2011 12:55 pm
The word has no meaning. Something must be missing, or the word is misspelled.
Agyu (with two accent marks) is cannon. Vet is nothing.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf November 12, 2011 08:13 pm
@Denes: Thanks for the response! The word "vetagyu" is from the book of Kövari, Lászlo, Erdély története 1848-1849-ben, Pest, 1861, in hungarian language in original. When he describe some military units, hungarian, romanian, austrian or russian, he mentioned the name of the unit, strenght in men and the artilery they had. He says for example "one company of Bianchi Regiment, with 4 six pounders gun and 1 vetágyu" (negy hat fontos ágyu es egy vetágyu). Initially I suposed that vetágyu is a kind a mortar, due the fact that guns are always mentioned separatelly. Or it might be some kind of rocket? I learned that in 1848-49 hungarian and austrian troops used Congreve rockets in Transylvania. Or it can be some kind of improvised piece of artilery or a kind of artilery piece used only for signals? As I am doing research, I need to know for sure what is a "vetágyu", if you can help in this way. You can see yourself the fragment of the text here, search at the page 142.

Posted by: Petre November 13, 2011 10:22 am
If somebody can translate this :
(franc.= piéce á feu, ném.= Geschütz) állványra fektett súlyos lövőfegyver. A hosszu csövü L.-eket, melyekből aránylag nagy mennyiségü puskaporral a lövedéket a vizszintes iránytól csak kevéssé eltérő irányban indítják el: ágyunak; a rövid csövü, de nagy ürméretü (kaliber) L.-eket, amelyekből aránylag kevesebb puskaporral, a vizszintes irány fölé tekintélyes magasságra emelkedő irányba hajtják a lövedéket, amely azután a céltárgyra mintegy lezuhan, mozsaraknak nevezik. A L.-ek e két főneme között foglalt helyet (e század második feléig) az ágyunál rövidebb, de a mozsárnál hosszabb csövü vetőágyu (hibásan: vetágyu: franc.= obice, ném.= Haubitze), mellyel belül üregesés robbanó, meg néha gyujtó anyagokkal megtöltött vasgolyókat, gránátokat (l. o.) lapos ívet leiró pályán lőttek, v. magasra emelkedő igen hajlított ívü pályán hajítottak (vetettek).

Posted by: 21 inf November 13, 2011 11:06 am
Thanks, Petre! Due to your post I managed to found out what a vetagyu is: a howitzer! smile.gif Sorry that I can't help you with the translation, is too complicated for me, as I dont speak hungarian so well.

Posted by: Petre November 13, 2011 01:15 pm
But actually I did not want this...

Posted by: Dénes November 13, 2011 03:04 pm
Thanks to Petre, it is now clear, vetágyu is the misspelled version of vetőágyú.

This was neither a cannon, nor a mortar. Its barrel was shorter than a cannon's, but longer than a howitzer's. It fired mainly round, hollow iron balls or grenades filled with explosive, or fire igniting powder on an arc-like trajectory.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf November 13, 2011 03:40 pm
QUOTE (Petre @ November 13, 2011 03:15 pm)
But actually I did not want this...

I know. Trying to help you, generally speaking the text you posted is a description and definition of what is a cannon, a mortar and a howitzer and what are the differences between them. A word by word translation would consume much time for me as I am not a native speaker of hungariam. So, as far I understand from the text, if you make a search with Google, you'll find all the info you need about this kind of weapons. I believe that in text is nothing particular to worth a particular translation. Thanks for your help, even if it was unintentional.

Posted by: Petre November 13, 2011 06:11 pm
My post was a appropriate text found by Google-search on vetagyu (Hu. lexicon), just as a starting point. I could see vetagyu is wrong, vetoagyu is correct, but unfortunately Google-translator gave poor results. Also vetoagyu is not usually and till now it is not very clear what it realy was.

Posted by: ANDREAS December 31, 2011 08:18 pm
The military operations in Transylvania involving romanian revolutionaries in 1848-1849:

Posted by: 21 inf December 31, 2011 10:42 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 31, 2011 10:18 pm)
The military operations in Transylvania involving romanian revolutionaries in 1848-1849:

For an article, good enough, even if had some things that not match (names of the romanian prefects, which prefect comanded what legion, number of total romanian combatants in a certain period and some other things). The erors are common made when citing a work without checking more sources on the same issue.

Here is the bibliography for my book (and still counting as I still have work to do on it wink.gif )

Apostol, Andreea, Constantin Racoviţă în Obiectiv argeşean, 23 noiembrie 2011
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 6, 1926
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 10, 1929
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 11, 1929
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 12, 1930
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 19, 1936
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 21, 1937
Batternay, Imre, junior, Zaránd vármegyei oláh lázadásnak, 1848ik évi martius 15töl – 1849iki junius végeig terjedö, rövid történeti vázlata, manuscris, 1850
Berindei, Dan, Revoluţia română din 1849-1849, Bucureşti, 1998
Bocşan, Nicolae, Graf, Rudolf, Revoluţia de la 1848 în Munţii Apuseni – Memorialistică, Cluj-Napoca, 2003
Bolovan, Ioan,Onofreiu, Adrian, Contribuţii documentare privind istoria regimentului grăniceresc năsăudean, Bucureşti, 2006
Borda, Valentin, Dutcă, Viorica, Rus, Traian, Avram Iancu şi prefecţii săi, Târgu Mureş, 1997
Csuták, Kálmán, Aradi fogságom alatt írott adatok az 1848/9 évi szabadságharc különösen az Erdély havasai ellen vitett hadjáratról, Pesta, 1868
Dragomir, Silviu, Avram Iancu, Bucureşti, 1968
Dudaş, Florian, Avram Iancu – Eroul românilor, Oradea, 1993
Dudaş, Florian, Avram Iancu în tradiţia românilor, Timişoara, 1998
„Familia”, Pesta, nr. 3, 1865
Florea, Alin Bogdan, Tinerii şi istoria. Tineri la 1848-1849 în Transilvania în Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, nr. 14, Alba Iulia, 2008
Furduiu, Ilie, Abrud – pagini de eroism, Alba Iulia, 2001
Furduiu, Ilie, Revoluţia de la 1848-1849, martiri şi eroi, Alba Iulia, 2002
Gorgey, Arthur, My life and acts in Hungary in the years 1848 and 1849, New York, 1852
Graf, Rudolf, Timişoara sub asediu: Jurnalul Feldmareşalului George v. Rukawina (aprilie-august 1849), Cluj-Napoca, 2008
Hidas, Peter I., The russian intervention in Hungary in 1849, Montreal, 1967
Josan, Nicolae, Românii din Munţii Apuseni de la Horea şi Avram Iancu la Marea Unire din 1918, Alba Iulia, 2001
Josan, Nicolae, Blandiana – Monografie istorică (I) în Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia, 2004
Josan, Nicolae, Memorandistul moţ Rubin Patiţia 1841-1918, Alba Iulia, 2002
Josan, Nicolae, Popa, Liliana, Cetatea Alba Iulia în timpul revoluţiei din anii 1848-1849 – documente vieneze, Alba Iulia, 2001
Klapka, Georg, Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Londra, 1850
Kövari, Lászlo – Erdély története 1848-1849-ben, Pesta, 1861
Lászlo, Lászlo, Revoluţia de la 1848 din Transilvania (VI) în Caiete Silvane, Zalău, 2009
Lazăr, Ioachim, Morar, Nicolae Marcel, Avram Iancu în memoria posterităţii, Deva, 2008
Lupaş, Ioan – Viaţa şi activitatea lui Gheorghe Bariţiu în Conferinţele ASTREI, Sibiu, 2008
Mager, Traian, Ţinutul Hălmagiului, 1937
Moga, Vasile, De la Apulum la Alba Iulia – fortificaţiile oraşului, Bucureşti, 1987
Mureşan, Camil – În templul lui Janus. Studii şi gânduri despre trecut şi viitor, Cluj-Napoca, 2002
Neamţu, Gelu, Maghiari alături de revoluţia de la 1848-1849 din Transilvania în Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, 2002
Neamţu, Gelu, Tutula, Vasile, Aspecte militare şi pagini memorialistice despre revoluţia şi războiul civil din Transilvania 1848-1849, Cluj-Napoca, 2008
Neamţu, Gelu, „Documente pentru viitorime” privind genocidul antiromânesc din Transilvania 1848-1849, Cluj-Napoca, 2009
Neş, Nicolae - Oameni din Bihor (1848-1918), Oradea, 1937
„Observatorul”, Toronto, noiembrie 2010
Pag, Teodor, Zarandul, ţară de voievozi, cneji şi nobili români, Cluj-Napoca, 2005
Pascu, Ştefan, Avram Iancu, Bucureşti, 1972
Popescu-Râmniceanu, Virgil, Luptele românilor din Ardeal 1848-49, Bucureşti, 1919
Prodan, David, Transilvania şi iar Transilvania, Bucureşti, 1992
Racoviţă-Cehan, Mihai, Familia Racoviţă-Cehan – Genealogie şi istorie, Bucureşti, 1942
Ranca, Ioan, Avram Iancu pe baricadele Apusenilor, Târgu Mureş, 2006
Rusu Abrudeanu, Ion, Moţii, calvarul unui popor eroic, dar nedreptăţit, Bucureşti, 1928
Sîntimbrean, Aurel; Bedelean, Horea; Bedelean, Aura, Aurul şi argintul Roşiei Montane, Alba Iulia, 2006
Schlesinger, Max, The war in Hungary, 1848-1849, Londra, 1850
„Societatea de mâine”, Cluj, nr. 19-20, anul I, 1924
Springean, Neli – George Bariţiu în Seria PERSONALIA, nr. 11, Sibiu, 2007
Sterca-Şuluţiu, Iosif, O lacrimă fierbinte, 1877
Sterca-Şuluţiu, Iosif, La anul 1784 şi la anul 1849, 1881
Süli, Attila, A nemzetőrség szervezése Erdélyben 1848 nyarán és őszén în „Hadtörténelmi
Közlemények”, nr. 3, Budapesta, 2000
Teodor, Pompiliu, Avram Iancu în memorialistică, Cluj, 1972
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 10, anul VIII, mai 1875
„Transilvania”, Braşov, nr. 1, anul IX, ianuarie 1876
„Transilvania”, Braşov, nr. 23, anul IX, decembrie 1876
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 21-22, anul XV, noiembrie 1884
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 1-2, anul XVII, ianuarie 1886
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 3-4, anul XVII, februarie 1886
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 5-6, anul XXVIII, iunie-iulie 1897
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 2-3, anul XXIX, martie-aprilie 1898
„Transilvania”, nr. 9, anul LIII, septembrie 1922
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 1, anul LXXIV, ianuarie 1943
Tucă, Florian; Ucrain, Constantin, Locuri şi monumente paşoptiste, Bucureşti, 1988
„Ţara Bârsei”, Braşov, nr. 3, anul I, septembrie-octombrie 1929
„Ţara Noastră”, Sibiu, nr. 8, anul III, martie 1909
„Új Forrás”, Tatabánya, nr. 6, anul XXXIV, 1998
Veresegyházi, Béla - Magyar csatahelyek kisenciklopédiája, Budapesta, 2000
colectiv, Alba Iulia 2000, Alba Iulia, 1975
colectiv, Istoria României. Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1997
colectiv, Revoluţia de la 1848 în Transilvania. Ancheta Kozma din Munţii Apuseni, Cluj-Napoca, 1998
colectiv, Ţara Moţilor, nr. IV, Cluj-Napoca, 1992

Posted by: ANDREAS January 02, 2012 12:07 am
HAPPY NEW YEAR! to all the forum members,
and obviously for you too 21 inf,
I just found the article and as one who is not very familiar with the subject of the 1848/1849 war in Transylvania I was happy to find it discussed from a viewpoint of a military specialist. As you and others probably realized until now, my interest is focused on military history, this including wars, tactics and warfare, military organization and other related to this! So I am focused in reading and studies on these issues, that's why my questions and research are directed on these! As I said earlier I wait your book where I am convinced I will find enough material where I am interested in!

Posted by: 21 inf January 02, 2012 08:32 am
Andreas, just ask what you want to know about 1848/49 military actions in Transylvania and I'll try to answer you.

About the article you mentioned, not necesarilly if one has a military rank is automatically a good military historian. For example, the recruiting for romanian Landsturm was not from 18 years of age, but from 17 and sometimes go as high as 60 years old, not only 50. The planned number of raising 195.000 fighters from romanian ranks is true, but in reality was never acomplished. In sping of 1849 the author of the article says that it was a rifle to every 30 romanian fighters, which is not quite accurate. He mention what Avram Iancu says in his "Raport", that he had only 1.300-1.400 rifles (but this speaks only for Auraria Gemina Legion, not for all romanian Landsturm!). This is valid, but if one makes a simle calculation, 1.300 rifles x 30 men = 39.000 men. Avram Iancu never had more than about 6.000 men, at his high maximum 7.000 men (and this was a number including the remains of some other legions, not only Auraria Gemina Legion he commanded). The whole romanian Landsturm couldnt have 40.000 men in spring of 1849. Maybe it had so much men in october-november 1848, but after hungarian offensive from december 1848, the ranks of romanian Landsturm fell dramatically. In october 1848 romanian Landsturm had some 30.000 men (from about 4 or 5 legions) which went on march toward Turda, but after the fell of Cluj after mid november 1848 most of men were dibanded due to lack of food and winter clothing. In december 1848 Avram Iancu raised only 1500 men in one time and 1500 men in another time. In summer 1849 Avram Iancu had only about 4 to 6.000 men. You'll find all the details in my book.

In the Mărişel fight from 12 march 1849 the author, general Ciobanu, says that Iancu sent 3 columns of fighters, each of 300 hungred men. That means 900 romanians, not including women!!! Totally wrong! First of all, the limits of Apuseni Mountains were defended by local romanian villagers, not by Avram Iancu. It was the case of Mărişel, also. The number of romanian fighters in this battle is not mentioned in any source I know. The single fact known is that the village was defended by it's villagers. Avram Iancu was not present and sent no troops to help. The participation of women in the fight resulted as desperation, as there were not enought men to defend properly the village. Check here my article about this fight. Also, consulting the "Raport" of Avram Iancu, there are the same datas as I wrote.

Gen Ciobanu says hungarian troops atacked romanians during peace discussion on Mihăileni. Not acurate. Major Hatvani atacked romanians at Abrud. At Mihăileni peace discussion were held 2 weeks BEFORE the atack mentioned. At it's Hatvani, not Hatvany. The report of Hatvani is known as being exagerated, by fear and by necesity to justify his defeat. Also, the report of Kemeny Farkas is exagerated regarding the number of romanian fighters. When Bem find about the failure of Kemeny's mission, he ordered Kemeny to imediately return to Apuseni and to crush romanian resistance. Kemeny had to justify what he did (or not).

Posted by: ANDREAS January 02, 2012 08:52 pm
Thank you 21 inf,
I do have a large series of questions, so I try to address them gradually, going into detail where I am more interested! Please excuse my few knowledge in the field and eventually give me, if you have patience, detailed explanations on the organization and equipping forces, their degree of military training, their command and military cooperation relations between them. So, my first question is : what degree of military cooperation between Austrian Army headquarters in Transylvania and hungarian irregulars (irregular militias) after the acceptance of "the union of Transylvania with Hungary" by the Emperor in june 1848? To be more specific there were evidence of support for the Hungarian militia in their punitive actions against the Romanians or only supplies of arms? How much freedom of action had the Szekler Regiments during this period in Transylvania and if these regiments were involved in military operations against the Romanians?

Posted by: 21 inf January 02, 2012 10:16 pm
In June 1848 the situation was still not clear for the austrian military authorities. They slowed down the rate of giving weapons to militias (hungarian and saxon - romanian militia was not yet organised, as was not the szekler one). There were no more cannons given to hungarian militia and the number of rifles handed to them was decreasing almost to none. Generally speaking, austrian authorities just sat and waited.

In summer 1848 1st Batalion of 2nd Romanian Border Regiment from Năsăud was sent by hungarian governmental comisars from Năsăud to Hungary in order to be sent to fight serbs in southern Hungary. At first, romanian soldiers from this batalion obeyed, but after a short time, long before leaving Transylvania, they were asked by the new hungarian authorities to swear on hungarian constitution, as a sign of faith toward Hungary. In seconds, romanian soldiers (ok, one can say they were austrian soldiers of romanian origin biggrin.gif) refused to put this oath. It was one of the first open atitude of a austrian military authority against hungarians.Even so, they were sent to Hungary and pressed all the time to join hungarian side, which they refused. After that, vicecolonel (lieutnant-colonel) Karl Urban was the first austrian superior oficer who openly refused to join hungarian side. A more firm position of austrian army from Transylvania went only in october, when Kossuth sent an ultimatum to them, asking them to hand over all fortifications from Transylvania to hungarian army and to join it, or to leave the fortification if they dont want to join hungarian revolution. Only in that moment austrian army reacted and refused to obey Kossuth, declaring openly that it will fight if necesary.

The Szekler Regiments had the same freedom of movement as any other austrian unit in that time, but I dont have enough info to answer this question. At the moment Kossuth established the Hondvedseg (hungarian national army), they were considered on hungarian side. I know szekler units fighting romanians in Apuseni Mountains, especially in Zarand and Ţara Moţilor, but it is not mentioned if they were regulars or militia.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 04, 2012 03:14 pm
Ok, let's move on,
After the first battle (Zlatna october 1848) between the romanian and hungarian militia, please describe me the following battles from Central Transylvania, where I read that hungarian and/or szekler troops (not sure if regular troops -the former Szekler-Grenzhusarenregiment and the two Szekler-Grenzinfanterieregiments or just militia) clashed with romanian detachments (Iernut and other places). Also tell me how did a fight go on between a romanian detachment (normaly poorly armed with firearms) and a well-armed unit (if it was a case in these battles or not)? Did the hungarians had firearms for all their men or was it similar to our nationalguards? These battles were a consequence of the Szekler insurgency (call it adherence to Hungarian revolution if you want for me it's the same) or a consequence of the plan made by our leadership (National Comitee from Sibiu or Avram Iancu leadership)? Please give me details also about the attitude of the imperial troops at this time (did they helped us or supply arms or indifference)! Thanks a lot!

Posted by: 21 inf January 04, 2012 04:43 pm
Ok, Andreas, let's take it step by step.

1. At Zlatna in october 1848 was not actually a battle. Petru Dobra's Legion heard that in some places romanian legions started to disarm the hungarian national guards. In the same time, Legion Auraria Gemina from Câmpeni, led by Avram Iancu, started to disarm the national hungarian guard from Abrud, AT SUPERIOR ORDERS! Dobra's legion had no order for disarming hungarian guard from Zlatna, but went into town. There were local hungarian national guards and hungarian guards from other localities. Peace talks started and a hungarian-romanian comision was formed in order to establish the way hungarians will give up the weapons. A mining administrator, Nemegyey Janos, ordered fire, by surprise, at romanian armed peasants who sat in the town square, waiting for the negociations to end peacefully. Some romanian peasants fell dead, the others run. They regrouped on the hills and charged against the town. Meanwhile, hungarian guards retreated from Zlatna, being outnumbered and put fire at romanian buildings in the hope romanians will stop to estinguish fires. Hungarian civilians also fled. Romanian armed peasants entered town, put fire at hungarian buildings and chased the fleing hungarians. Some were killed went romanians kept them from behind, others (most of them) were killed at Presaca. More than 600 hungarians, guards and civilians were killed.

2. Szekler offensive started in 19 october.Here is a calendar of fights, as far as I know now:
20 october: the szekler vanguard reached Tg Mureş.
22 october: austrian general Gedeon is sent to Fărăgaş to start operations agaisnt szeklers.
23 october: In Cipău and in Iernut romanian militia was atacked by count Lazar Denes brigade, who drive them away. Romanian militia fled.
25 october: a szekler column is defeated by imperial troops at Saroş. On the same day, Axente Sever prefect is defeated by hungarians at Ciumbrud, Alba. On the same say, romanian Landsturm clashes with hungarians at Sâncrai. On the same day, hungarian national guards from Aiud, led by count István Kemény atacked the romanian militia camp from Măgina and routed the romanian fighters.
26 october: Luduş is taken by szeklers. A szekler column, leaving Lutiţa, reach Băgaciu.
28 october: Romanian Landsturm wins a victory against honveds led by count Gábriel Bethlen. On the same day 2nd romanian grenz regiment is defeated by hungarians at Şapartoc.
31 october: Mureş Legion atacked and defeated count Lázár Dénes's brigade. On the same day, vicecolonel Urban is defeated by szeklers at Sântioana, near Reghin.
5 november: Mureş Legion, led by prefect (equivalent with general rank in regular army) Constantin Romanu-Vivu, atacked Lazar Denes's brigade and records show that the brigade was almost totally wiped off. On the same day, szekler troops are defeated by imperial army at Tg Mureş.

The fights continued, but is too long to write here a day by day account. I hope this answered at least partially to your question. I didnt studied carefully the OOB, so I cant say now what szekler unit fight, but is sure that at least a part of them were nemzetorseg, national guards.

3. At the time of october-december 1848 some of the fights resulted as consequence of szekler movement. Romanian movement i dont know, i didnt studied the issue for october 1848. for november and december romanian troop movement was at austrian order.

I'll write about tactics later.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 04, 2012 05:08 pm
Thanks 21 inf,
I try to read (but it's very difficult because it's written in old german characters) a free book downloaded from Google called "Der Nationalkrieg in Ungarn und Siebenburgen in den jahren 1848 und 1848" written by Georg Klapka and published in 1851! The problem (other then the hard reading german -I know german but these old characters are almost impossible!) is that I don't entirely trust the author (who for instance blame entirely the romanians for Zlatna events!). So I will continue with the series of questions, gradually, following the events in their chronological order! I hope you don't take this as an abuse from me, but since I haven't read a book describing as detailed possible the events from 1848-1849 from Transylvania, I need to ask somebody who studied it! So you understand my interest on this and also my many questions!

Posted by: 21 inf January 04, 2012 05:57 pm
Andreas, just keep asking what you want to know, I'll try to answer you. You can find online PDF version of Klapka, Georg, Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Londra, 1850, but has few references of fighting with romanian Landsturm.

LE> I dont know a good romanian book about day by day military events in Transylvania in 1848/1849. I put together the puzzle of there from romanian, hungarian and a few austrian sources. What I put together is still incomplete.

Much LE wink.gif :

Regarding the tactics, there were diferent ones depending on the type of weapons romanians had. A remarque: in 1848-49 all romanian fighters were called "lăncieri", doesnt matter if they had rifles or not. Here I will use the designation of "lăncieri" only for those armed with "coase îndreptate" or "lănci"; but a "lăncier" could as well be armed with "topor", "bardă", "îmblăciu", "furcă", spear, bow and arrows or other "armă albă".

For the "lăncieri" companies (a company was named centurie in 1848 in romanian Landsturm), which was planned to have 200 men each, it was indicated to atack in close ranks. After the first company, the second and the third companies came at short distance. It was a kind of human wave attack. If the first company was defeated, the second and the third had to keep pushing, allowing the retreating one to regroup and charge again. If the first one was succesfull and the enemy pinned down on the battlefield, the second and the third company had to flank the enemy and to suround him, forcing him to surrender or die. Other tactic was that the "lăncieri" company served as decoy for the enemy, making him to start a chase. When the enemy unit started the chase, the "lăncieri" company withdraw over the top a hill, ocupying a position on the reverse slope, just a few meters down, enough that the enemy couldnt see it. When the enemy was on the top of the hill, the "lăncieri" company charged from a few step distance, yelling as hell. This were tactics against enemy infantry.

Against cavalry, the "lăncieri" company was instructed to fight as any regular infantry, making a "careu", using it's "lănci" for making a defence looking like a hedgehog.

The "puşcaşi" or "vânători" units ("puşcaşi" or "vânători" is the same thing, but found under both names in the 1848-49 and later writings) fought almost the same way as regular infantry. They were able to fight as light infantry or line infantry, making ambushes or raids like regular infantry. They also have sharpshooters, many of the "puşcaşi" being skilled hunters before revolution. For atacks, they formed assault columns which charged the enemy.

In battle, if there were both "puşcaşi" and "lăncieri" companies, the "puşcaşi" ones entered battle in the first line, "lăncieri" being given as support for them.

Romanian cavalry was insignificant in numbers, mostly used, probably, as couriers.

Romanian artillery was build up from wooden cannons, "treascuri", self-made iron cannons and captured hungarian cannons. There few to none trained artilery men in romanian ranks, usually "puşcaşi" manned the cannons. Wooden cannons were made usually from fir tree wood, circled with 9-10 iron circles as reinforcement. They could fire up to 10 shots, after that they were useless. They could fire stone, wood, iron or incendiary rounds, but were used mainly for intimidating purposes. For shooting, they were installed on wooden "capre". "Treascuri" were mortar-like looking pieces of artilery, also called "mojar" or "piuliţe". Almost every village used to have one, used in peace times as peasant celebrations. They were used for signals, when fired made a big noise. 3 iron cannons were casted at Câmpeni in January 1849, from which 2 were good and were used in battle. Hungarian captured artillery consisted on 2, 3, 6 and 12 pounders cannons.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 04, 2012 08:03 pm
Ok, thanks 21 inf!
Studying a bit the problem of the chances in a battle for the romanian formations (landsturm as the austrians call them) I understood this: actually if we ignore the artillery the situation was not so worse as I expected! The answer stays in the rifles (the smoothbore muskets) used by the majority of enemy forces (austrian or hungarian) by 1848. The 1842M Augustin-type smoothbore musket (as all of the muskets if we speak in general) had a deadly accuracy from 45 - 65 m, and generally low accuracy. That's why the long bayonets were very praised! So a low fire discipline of the soldiers or militia armed with those muskets can make them very vulnerable as the musket reloading with ammo required long time! Tell me, as a next question, what do you know about the tactics used by our troops in combat with better equipped troops! I mean here : were they helped in deployment, combat maneuvers and combat operations by austrian officers (I know that some were used along the imperial forces but many legions had no such help) or what helped them to organize their forces so well as they did? What was their secret? tongue.gif

Posted by: 21 inf January 04, 2012 08:38 pm
First of all, an answer I didnt gave yet: hungarian-szekler troops were far better armed with fire weapons, but were some units, usually nemzetorseg (national guards) as bad armed with fire weapons as romanians. There are examples of this kind of units were from 3-400 men only 60 had rifles.

Now the answer about romanian instructors and tactics: almost each romanian legion (division), made at least on the paper by up to 10.000 men, in reallity only one managed to have 8.000 men, the others only between 2.000 to 6.000, had an austrian oficer given as "military adviser" and "military comander". It was the case of captain Ivanovici who was asigned to Auraria Gemina Legion, lieutnant-major Mânzat to Axente Sever's legion, lieutnant Şăndruc from 1st romanian border regiment given to units from around Aiud, lt. Clima from Leiningen Regiment given to Zarand Legion and later lt. Cernovici given to the same legion. Some of them were ok, doing their job, some, as cpt. Ivanovici, were reported as doing nothing. Beside this "oficial" instructors, all able former romanians who served in the army were given ranks in the legions. They teached romanian peasants how to fight in improvised military camps, called "lagăr" or "loagăr" in 1848-49. Peasants were called to camps for some days to make military training. For training existed some "regulamente" printed like small booklets in romanian language, some of them written by austrian officers. In the biggest battles in Apuseni Mountains in May and June 1849 at Abrud, there was no austrian military counselors there, except cpt Ivanovici, who did nothing and in the last battle fled. All battle plans were made by young romanian revolutionaries, some of the lawyers, some of the priests. They learned by necesity. Experienta docet.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 04, 2012 10:08 pm
Thanks a lot (don't intend to make you embarrassed by so many thaks but it's my way to appreciate an interesting and obviously unknown information) 21 inf! It's interesting all what you said! I found this
but no much use for what we are talking about here... but I posted it anyway as general education ! biggrin.gif
Turning back in central Transylvania have you any information about the punitive actions and atrocities committed by Szekler troops against romanian villages in in October-November 1848? Or didn't they had the opportunity to do so, because they were quickly engaged in fighting by the imperial troops?

Posted by: 21 inf January 05, 2012 06:45 am
Szeklers destroyed a number of romanian villages in october/november 1848 in their way. I have to consult my bibliography in order to give you a number of romanian villages destroyed by them, as I cant remember from memory, cos it was not my subject. I'll post next weeks this number if I'll have time. Also, they killed a number of romanian peasants outside fightings, but also the number I cant tell. They are acused that they burned Reghin to ashes and pillaged it after the battle at Sântioana with Urban, but I didnt the issue too much, so I cant tell how it happened in detail.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 05, 2012 05:43 pm
Ok, a short question this time,
with probably a short answer too! The so-called "lanci" used by the romanian landsturm were actually the "assault sew" which were described in one episode of "1848-1849" (Blog Datina Strabuna) or modified sew probably handmade by the moti? Their use in battle was similar to that of bayonets or maybe similar to spears used in the Middle Ages, that means thrown at enemy from distance?

Posted by: 21 inf January 05, 2012 06:28 pm
Lanci were not coasa de asalt or coase indreptate and were not spears. They looked like spears, but the iron tip was biger and heavier than at spears. In battle, a lance was not thrown into enemy, but used as a bayonet. Spears, used by motzes in 1848/49, were for range fighting, being thrown against enemy.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 05, 2012 09:55 pm
Based on a new, but unverified, information, the 1842M Augustin-type smoothbore musket was also produced, in small quantities, in summer and autumn of 1848, in an arms repair factory in Cluj. These arms had been distributed to the two Honved battalions (nr. 11 and nr. 12) raized in Transylvania. Know something about this? I mean about the raize of these two battalions or the muskets produced in Cluj?

Posted by: 21 inf January 06, 2012 08:18 pm
About the 11th batalion I wrote something maybe at this topic some time ago, maybe a year or more ago. It was formed at Cluj. Recruitment centers were at Bistriţa, Dej, Deva, Aiud and Turda. Recruitment areas were: Alba Superioară county (comitat, vármegye), Solnocul interior county, Dăbâca county, Hunedoara county, Cluj county, Ţara Chioarului, Solnocul mijlociu county, Crasna county, Târnava county, Turda county and Zarand county. It was formed by volunteers in July-October 1848. In mid October 1848 numbered 1086 men.

12 honved batalion was formed at Târgu Mureş. Recruitment centers were at Braşov, Şumuleu Ciuc, Făgăraş, Târgu Secuiesc, Sibiu, Sighişoara and Odorheiu Secuiesc. Recruitment areas were: Scaunul Arieşului, Braşov area, Scaunul Ciuc, Trei Scaune, Scaunul Mureş and Scaunul Odorhei. It was formed by volunteers in July-October 1848. In mid October 1848 had 1053 men.

About manufacturing weapons at Cluj, I dont have a specific info, but it is plausible. Citing hungarian sources, more than 10.000 men were asigned to weapons production in Hungary and Transylvania in at least 50 factories and workshops. Smaller workshops were also in function, some of them quite eficient. A small workshop like this managed to produce 4 6 pounder cannons at Sânmartin, near Oradea. A big factory was based in Oradea and very fast managed to make 2 milion rifle cartridges per month. A small workshop in Arad managed to produce about 120 rifles per month, which was a good amount. Cannons were made for hungarian army at Reşiţa and Bocşa. Other workshops working to produce ammo were at Baia Mare, Bistriţa and others. Gabor Aron, a szekler oficer, former austrian military man, managed to make around 90 iron cannons in the teritories inhabited by szeklers in central Transylvania.

In september 1848 the requirements of hungarian army were for 13.000 rifles per month. Hungarian war industry managed to produce about 6.000 per month. Also, at that time ammo production was deficient, but was improved next months.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 06, 2012 09:03 pm
You're right 21 inf,
I remember I read something about the 11th Honved Battalion here in this forum some time ago! Thanks for the details they are very interesting, as usual, I might say! Before trigger the series of questions about Bem's campaign in Transylvania and the battles from the Apuseni area, I have some questions about the relationship between Avram Iancu and the other moti commanders with the National Romanian Council of Sibiu. I am asking here whether this relation was one of the type political leadership (NRC) - military leadership (Avram Iancu and legion commanders), or something different I don't know? The National Romanian Council of Sibiu has helped in any way the military actions of the Romania legions, was it involved in providing money or supply or what was his role?

Posted by: 21 inf January 06, 2012 10:05 pm
Romanian National Comitee (Comitetul Naţional Român), later Comitetul de Pacificare, had the role of a govern and it had, of course, political role, but not necesarly a military one. RNC was choose by romanian people, CP was named by asutrians and had also saxons in it's organisation. RNC was the oficial representative of romanians from Transylvania. All the 15 prefects (Avram Iancu, Dobra, Sever, Buteanu, Balint, Pop Marţian and others) were named by RNC and received written confirmation in their prefect function. Under RNC supervision Transylvania was to be organised as a romanian province, the teritory being divided in administrative units called "prefecturi". Each "prefectură" was to be led by a prefect. Each "prefectură" had to raise a military unit, equivalent of a division. It was planned that each legion had to have 10.000 men. Each prefect and viceprefect had to report weekly or at every 2 weeks to RNC about the situation in their "prefectură". I dont know yet if RNC suported with money the prefects, but if it did, it was insignificant. Comitetul de Pacificaţiune members had their salaries paid by the austrian authorities for the 5 month it existed, until Sibiu fell in hungarian hands in March 1849. But CP had it's own money and this is sure: when CP sought refuge in Muntenia after fell of Sibiu, a "cufăr" with it's money was also evacuated. The money disapeared at some time and a romanian member of CP was acused of steeling it. The money were never found until late 2000, if I rem well sometimes in 2008 or 2009 (but I might be wrong about exact year) when all of them were found buried in the cellar of the house were the CP was sheltering for a while in it's refuge. A good number of romanian members of CP were arested by russian authorities on different charges when they were in refuge in Muntenia.

After going into refuge in March 1849, CP had no influence or contact with romanian prefects from Transylvania, whatsoever. The prefects had to act on their own decisions. Some of them choose to flee into refuge, as prefect Solomon, after being defeated by hungarians; other, like Micaş, also fled, but without fighting too much or close to none; most of the prefects who survived october 1848/march 1849 choose to fight, but it was their decision, not CR's. Their fate during revolution and after that you'll find in my book (short biography). Some of their biographies (long ones), you can find at Enciclopedia României online, most of them written by me. Also, you can find there a try to reconstruct the number of romanian legions, their organisations and in some cases, recruitment areas and their training basis ("loagăre").

Posted by: ANDREAS January 06, 2012 10:28 pm
Ok, I understand now!
I will search in Enciclopedia României online about them, thanks for saying! I found something, you probably now by now, but I can give the link (it's in hungarian but can be translated online) - if somebody interested can find more info about Hungarian militias (hungarian landwehr) from Transylvania - most probably the troops who confronted our legions!

Posted by: ANDREAS January 06, 2012 11:15 pm
And another question, came into my mind after reading this :
Is it hungarian propaganda or the armenians and the jews enthusiastically supported the cause of Hungary? If they do I could understand the ones who lived in Hungary but why also these living in Transylvania? The cause of this support can be found in the traditional politics of any small minority "be on the side of the strongest" (in this case hungarian aristocracy and little bourgeoisie from Transylvania) or is another explanation? Do you know more or have your own theory on that?

Posted by: 21 inf January 07, 2012 05:15 am
You see, as in any conflict, there were people from diferent nations joining other side. It is true that jews joined hungarians. Actually, even after ww1, most of jews declared themselfes hungarian jews, not romanian jews. They like more like this. Why? I dont know. I dont know how many armenians joined hungarians, but there were also austrians, poles, gipsies and even some romanians . I found a handfull of romanians, with full names, who presented their services as spies (or "iscoade" or "călăuze") to hungarian army. Not to be confused with romanians recruited with the force, more than 5.000 men, in the honved batalions. It is not the same thing and who says that romanians joined in great numbers hungarian army, tells pure propaganda.

Kossuth Lajos was of slovac origins and one of his uncles, named also Kossuth, fight with enthusiasm on slovac side and reproached Kossuth Lajos that he joined hungarian side. Petofi Sandor was also of slav origin (Petrovic Alexander). Vasvari Pal (Fejer Pal) was of ucrainian origin. General Bem was polish and from those "famous" 13 generals executed at Arad by austrians in late 1849 only few (2 or 3) were hungarians. Czecz Janos, general, was of mixed origin - armenian, hungarian, szekler and, probably, romanian.

Romanian side was also joined by a few number of saxons. I have no clue yet of hungarians joining romanian side in battle. Politically yes, there were cases of hungarian peasants joining romanian national gatherings, but I doubt the number was relevant.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 07, 2012 09:43 pm
Because you mention the romanians who presented their services as spies, the very known case of deputy Ioan Dragos (I read this: can be seen like that or he was used without his knowledge by the hungarians? How do you see this case from the documents you read?

Posted by: 21 inf January 08, 2012 05:57 am
Dragoş was not a spy, he was what we would call today "a căzut de fraier". Dragoş was romanian and deputy in Hungarian parliament. Together with Gojdu and another romanian from Oradea, he issued a proclamation trying to convince romanians from Transylvania to join hungarians. He was convinced by the ideas of hungarian revolution.

In early summer 1849, seeing Kossuth that moţii cant be defetead with weapons, tried to convince them peacefully to lay weapons. A first try was made (but not clearly confirmed with documents) by a proeminent hungarian, at Hălmagiu. Negociations are said to be failed. Next Kossuth's move was to ask for a volunteer to go to moţi to convince them to give up. 2 romanians decline Kossuth's offer, but Dragoş accepted. He was told that if he manage to have succes, he'll be made "comite" of Bihor county. He went to moţi, managed to obtain a cease fire, but major Hatvani entered Abrud during the cease fire. Dragoş was considered traitor and killed. It is still debated today if Dragoş knew about Hatvani's intentions. It seems that he didnt, so he became "ţepuit".

Posted by: MMM January 08, 2012 01:31 pm
QUOTE (21 inf @ January 08, 2012 08:57 am)
Dragoş accepted. He was told that if he manage to have succes, he'll be made "comite" of Bihor county. He went to moţi, managed to obtain a cease fire, but major Hatvani entered Abrud during the cease fire. Dragoş was considered traitor and killed. It is still debated today if Dragoş knew about Hatvani's intentions. It seems that he didnt, so he became "ţepuit".

Hey, if the story's so simple, why isn't it more known? I mean, it doesn't look so bad for any of the sides, either Hungarian ("ţepuitori") or Romanian ("good-willed" rather than "ţepuiţi")...
BTW, nice topic, nice discussions, no conflicts! How comes? (rhetorical question, of course...)

Posted by: ANDREAS January 08, 2012 02:33 pm
Another debated problem from what I read is if Kossuth himself used Ioan Dragos or major Imre Hatvany acted on his own (as he was later -in 1850- charged by Kossuth to prepare a new revolution in Hungary)? Was Kossuth sincere in his offers made ​to Romanians or not?

Posted by: Dénes January 08, 2012 02:35 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 08, 2012 07:31 pm)
BTW, nice topic, nice discussions, no conflicts! How comes? (rhetorical question, of course...)

It's because only one side of the story is being told, so there is no conflict of ideas and perceptions.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf January 08, 2012 06:19 pm
Denes, I didnt told only one side's story, but you can consider like this if you like it more. Just tell me what is the "one side story" or maybe it is more apropiate to call it "half truth"? It will be my pleasure to answer you. A lot about what I said is from 1st hand hungarian sources smile.gif. Some of them are even unknown by romanian oficial researchers or historians, as they personally told me when I spoke with them. There are letters and memories (of Bem, Czecz, Csutak and many others) published facsimiled by hungarian historians and I readed them personally.

Andreas: it is even today debated if Kossuth used both Dragoş and Hatvani, none of them or only one of them. The suposition that he used Dragoş is based on a letter Kossuth gave to Dragoş and this letter seems to be dated in advance. Also, it seems that he wrote to Hatvani pushing him into action, but it is not quite clear if the order was clear or just Hatvani (advocate in civilian life and much unapreciated as military man by carrier oficers as Czecz Janos) acted at his own will. On the other side, the concessions Kossuth made to romanians were so big and so many, given writed on the paper, that it would be amazing if he gave this concesions with one hand and with other hand pushing the army into action in the same days.

LE, as I readed again what Andreas asked: no one knows if Kossuth's offer to romanians was sincere. In 1850 Hatvani couldnt do a new revolution in Hungary. After hungarian revolution failed in 1849, he fled to South America. He returned in 1850 only to be caught shortly by austrians, who put him jail, where he died.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 08, 2012 10:04 pm
it's surprising that you make such assessments, once the majority of the discussions we have were technical, and assessments of the actions of one or the other parts in conflict were based on Hungarian books or websites that have been mentioned! If you have a different opinion than those expressed, you are free to say it, mentioning the sources that supports it!
21 inf,
the offensive triggered by Bem in Transylvania in the second half of December 1848 comprising 11 150 men in infantry, 1 385 men in cavalry and 24 guns (according to Janos Czecz only half of them were experienced trained soldiers) has enjoyed great success in a short period of time. Comparing to the three brigades of Austrian forces as you described here: - mainly regular forces with superior artillery, the Hungarian troops success appears more then significant! Bem actually get with his troops during the war in 1849 important victories against the austrian and later russian troops! The commander Janos Czecz often praise Bem's military genius, but as he was in his army can be suspected of partiality so what can we believe from his writings about Bem's campaign? Are there other explanations (surely his troops were good, because even a genius commander without a good army can't win battles!) like big mistakes made by austrians or any other factors I don't know? For instance a deliberate retreat of the austrians in the fortified cities from the south (Deva, Alba Iulia, Sibiu, Brasov, a.o.)?

Posted by: 21 inf January 09, 2012 06:04 am
A quality which cannot be denied to Bem is that he was really stubborn. About his genius, my personal opinion is average. He had some moments when he manage to exploit well the mistakes austrians made, other times he failed as a normal man in rather similar situations like the ones when he was briliant. Also, the austrians made a lot of mistakes. In the austrian OOB I mentioned one can see that austrian forces were scatered and deloyed in depth in Transylvania. The hungarian troops were forming a large front, from Şimleu Silvaniei to Ciucea. They managed to threaten austrian right flank and did so imediately after Ciucea Pass battle from 18-20 december 1848. Bem went toward Baia Mare, then changed direction toward Bistrita, pushing austrian right flank in Moldova. He didnt went straight to Cluj, even he had the way open. Other troops were sent there. This was his good movement.

I also doubt about the quality of hungarian troops as Czecz says. One brief looking at the 11th Honved batalion and other similar units, from hungarian sources, show that they were raised from volunteer ranks and these men were not professional soldiers. They barely had 5 months of military trainings and I cant tell if this training was continuous or was only from time to time. The only professionals were the austrian regiments raised from hungarian ranks BEFORE the revolution. My guess is that Czecz wants to emphasise how good were his troops and that at Ciucea the austrians lost because austrian army was badly used on the field. (anyway, the losses at Ciucea Pass battle were about 20 hungarian dead and some 18 dead and 20 wounded on austrian side)

Austrians had no plans afaik to withdraw in fortifications. They had extremelly few troops to manage the walls: at Alba Iulia they merelly had 2.500 men instead of 10.000 to defend all the fortifications; at Deva they had 200 men. Sibiu was almost undefended.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 09, 2012 06:45 pm
For the start I want to say, to be correct with what Czecz say in his memoires, that he hasn't overrated his troops : so, for instance, he mentioned that half of his army were national guard troops who in their majority (except those from Debrecen and those from Transylvania who had muskets) had only lances (spears) as main weapons, and were untrained men, that the artillery crews consist mainly from recruits without much experience, that the Szekler units, even if were formed from former Imperial Army Border Regiments were undisciplined and always dissatisfied with conditions from the army camps in winter 1848-49, a.o. He thus stressed the merit of the commanders who managed to obtain important victories against first hand imperial troops with second class units, untrained and not so well armed! And the spirit that animated the Transylvanian army fighters who transformed them in 3-4 months in a strong, disciplined and well coordinated army! Czecz sayings...
Because we spoke about Bem's strengths and weaknesses as a man and also as a military commander, I was surprized (somehow) to read that one of the assigned duties was the destruction of Romanian rebellion from the Apuseni Mountains, after defeating the imperial army and the conquest of Transylvania. Why surprized? Because in some Hungarian books I met a neglect of the importance of the "rebellion led by Avram Iancu" that would be only "a small Vendee" who was completely insignificant for the freedom war against the austrians and later russians. From this new perspective I say that the importance of the moti battles increased and can't be overlooked by anyone who wants to be in accord with to historical truth! How important is in the economy of war the resistance of the moti in the Apuseni Mountains? Have you read or see some relevant documents in this matter?

Posted by: 21 inf January 10, 2012 05:30 am
I will present these days the hungarian documents who show what important was the resistence of romanians and especially the motzi. The documents will be from: the minister of war, general Bem, general Czecz, major Csutak, Kossuth. There are also russian generals talking about it. Until then, I' ll just mention that motzes kept ocupied and unavailable for other operations about 1/3 of 6th Hungarian Army Corp, who was the enemy army operating in Transylvania. This means about 10.000 men unavailable for hungarians.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 11, 2012 10:28 pm
21 inf,
in Chapter 12 of his book dedicated to the campaign of General Bem in Transylvania, Janos Czecz is trying to promote the idea that the oppression and persecution policy (he mentioned here the seizure of all assets of those who opposed the union with Hungary and also trial for treason of the country of those who had supported the Austrians!) against the former enemies, Romanians and Saxons, was a result of Kossuth policy trough the government commissioner Csany Laszlo, which overturned the amnesty decreed by Bem, and stirred up even more the opposition of the Romanians (Wallachen). Czecz says that himself and Bem found this policy as "harmful and nonpolitical". He also says that the time was particularly bad for this, because the Romanians were far from being pacified, and were still militarily significant!
What do you know about this, from the documents that you have studied? Is this real or an attempt of defending himself and also Bem from the atrocities committed (by the Courts of blood) against romanian population?

Posted by: 21 inf January 12, 2012 05:48 am
At least for a period it was like Czecz said: Kossuth issued threats toward romanians in october 1848, when the civil war didnt erupted yet. Also, he asked austrian troop to join hungarian side. In late october tribunalele de sange were already working, even if bloody incidents between romanians and hungarians were insignificant. Everybody who was just suspected to have the slightest oposition toward Pest government was put to death by military courts, with no posibility to legal defence or appeal. When Bem came in Transylvania he issued an amnesty to all, but was not taken into account due to terror unleashed by hungarian government. In 23 may 1849 Bem issued a battle order to Kemeny Farkas which is odd for Bem, because it was like an extermination order. He was desperate that the motzes were still fighting, even if austrian and russian armies were out of Transylvania. In the rest, I studied Czecz only partially.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 12, 2012 08:41 pm
I apologize, I forgot to mention the period Czecz referred to - he said in March 1849! So far I read it, when I knew more I write! Only in Chapter 14 he describes at large the battles in the Apuseni Mountains with the Moti, I am now reading Chapter 12!

Posted by: 21 inf January 13, 2012 04:33 am
Andreas, what I said above was valid in March 1849.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 13, 2012 10:51 pm
Ok 21inf,
I suspected you understood the period of time I referred, but I needed to be more precise! Even if it is a bit off-topic I found this interesting link : - especially page 11-13 where I found some answers to the questions I put earlier (what motivated so many foreigners (non-hungarians) to join the hungarian revolution and actually fight for it!). What do you think about what is written there?

Posted by: 21 inf January 15, 2012 09:08 am
Andreas, I am not a specialist in history now, but my personal opinion is that austrian empire was cracking from all it's joints in 1848 due to it's multinational structure. It was a prelude to 1918 when it colapsed by the sheer number of so-called "nationalities" from the empire: serbs, slovacs, czechs, romanians, italians, ukrainians and so on. From the romanian point of view, my guess is that transylvanian romanians, if the moldavian and wallachian revolutions wouldnt failed, Europe might see even from 1848 a Romanian stat on the map (at least made and declared so by romanians, not necesarilly agreed by the great powers - some guys will tell that there was no romanian national spirit developed enough in 1848 - I will point the work of dr Arpad Kosztin, a hungarian propagandist writing in mid 2000's> he says that at least the motzes had a very strong national spirit even from 1707!!! biggrin.gif hypothesis> if the motzes, iliterate and relativelly isolated mountain romanian poor serfes were so aware of their nationality in 1707, how were the rest of romanians?!; another foreign source from 1770 - romanians from Banat were calling Muntenia with the name "Ţara Mare" ). In 1848 in eastern Europe (including Transylvania) was too much prevailing the feudal mentality (nobles and serfs and so on), so the national issue was mixed with social issues. In other parts of the Europe, France for example, the 1848 revolution was only social.

The motivation non-hungarian officers had to fight on hungarian side might be as well what was written on the article you pointed: idealism, personal profit, or, in the case of many polish oficers, the dream of a free Poland (they were fighting for it at least from 1831).

About the hesitant atitude of austrians until december 1848, it is not big issue: Ferdinand I of Austria was mentally disabled since birth and completelly unfit to rule anything, not to speak about an empire. It is said that his only rational sentence as emperor was when he said "I am the emperor and I want dumplings!".

LE: my personal guess is that romanians fight on austrian sode only because they had no ohter choice. If they could, probably they would fight for geting out from the austrian empire, but not on hungarian side.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 15, 2012 10:20 pm
A more balanced approach on the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49 I found the book Paul Lendvai - Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003) which I read now. The dispassionate and interesting perspective is very useful for everybody who wants to understand the possible causes of the "worship" the Hungarians and many West-Europeans (Germans, French, British, a.o.) have for Kossuth, even though many (even too many!) of his actions hastened the collapse of the revolution! He blamed, and most of his countrymen believed him, as responsible for the defeat on General Arthur Görgey, a man who he unjustly persecuted whenever he had the opportunity, a men that was certainly one of the best military commanders that the Hungarian revolution gave, and whose moderation make, very often, mad the passionate Kossuth! Another very interesting chapter reveals the major conflict between Kossuth and more balancing count Istvan Szechenyi, a man who, even in greater measure than Kossuth, brought Hungary in modernity! The major difference between them, although they wanted, much the same thing, was the way forward for their country's progress! Kossuth wanted revolution and independence, Szechenyi wanted modernization within the empire! And another difference, which we (as romanians) are interested, stays in the treatment of nationalities, with Kossuth who do not conceive the existence of a multinational Hungary and an equal treatment for all the nationalities (in 1848 at least) and Szechenyi who was convinced of the revolution's tragic end due to disregard of the rights of nationalities! I'll be excused for this parenthesis​​, but I found the book interesting, and also the relations of Kossuth with some of his best quality people (a brilliant reformist Szechenyi and an excellent genaral Görgey!) that he worked with temporarily!

Posted by: 21 inf January 16, 2012 05:18 am
I didnt study the issue yet, but I wonder if Kossuth was so apreciated in other countries. Yes, he went from Turkey in USA and in England, but I wonder if his good receiving was not organised by hungarian emigration. After all, it was not only him the only revolutionary leader in Europe who fight against austrians for independence; they were also the italians. So why anglo/saxons to bother about him? In England wasnt any revolution in 1848, they were not interested in this kind of affair.

Odd situation of Kossuth: he was not even hungarian, but he didnt wanted to recognise any but hungarians in Transylvania and Hungary. Kossuth was of mixed origins, slovac and a little german. At least one of his uncles, named also Kossuth, fight ardously on the slovac side in 1848/49. A "picant" detail, less known: when Kossuth run to Turkey, the crown of St. Stephen of Hungary was buried under a tree near Orşova. It was recuperated by hungarians years later.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 21, 2012 03:46 pm
One of the moments that I studied these week (when time allowed me), which included the reading of documents from the era (1848-1849) in Arad County Library was the clashes that have degenerated in open battles in Arad and Zarand Country from autumn 1848 until early 1849. My interest was fueled by the series of military defeats suffered by Romanian popular detachments, led by the tribunul Alexandru Chendi (october 1848) and prefectul Ioan Buteanu against an opponent made ​​up of detachments led by Major Gal Laszlo (former officer in the imperial army, who was appointed commander of the national guards of Arad County) and major Csutak Kalman (also former officer in the imperial army, appointed as organizer of Honved Battalion nr. 27 in Bihar district in october 1848). Of course I already read the information published by you, and those from Enciclopedia Romaniei, but I was interested in what can I personally find, including Hungarian documents of the period! So my conclusion is that at least in terms of fightings waged in the Zarand country, especially in the Halmagiu -Brad area, the Hungarian opponent had a greater number of professional soldiers (not only in the head, but also in the structure of these detachments), a higher number of firearms (received in July from the arsenal of the imperial troops from Timisoara) and the support of at least one regular army unit -the 1st Battalion /1st Szekler Border Infantry Regiment nr. 14. I don't intend to analyze here the series of atrocities committed on the civilian romanian population by the Hungarian national guards (from the Zarand area), but often even ordered by the Hungarian military commanders mentioned above.
What do you know in addition to those written by me?

Posted by: 21 inf January 21, 2012 06:15 pm
Major Gal Laszlo was ordered in late October 1848 to start a punishment expedition against the romanian villages from western part of Arad, Zarand and Timiş counties. He had embeded the comisars of Pest hungarian government who were in charge with "tribunale de sânge", even if those were clearly illegal at that time. Gal was a professional military, but I doubt that many of his men were profesional soldiers. Most of them were hungarian national guards, transformed in so called army, the Honvedseg. The main difference between this hungarian troopers and romanian combatants from Arad and Zarand was that even if the hungarians were not profesionals, they received a partial training in the months before October 1848 and they had firepower superiority. In Arad county and in part of Zarand county, the romanian combatants were nothing but peasant hastilly raised under arms when hungarians aproached. This is in my opinion the main cause of the defeating of Chendi and Buteanu. When hungarians met organised resistance and partially trained romanian combatants they were quite often defeated and some hungarian comanders said that romanians fought better than austrian soldiers. At Guravăii Gak destroyed and routed the romanians oposing as they were untrained and poorly leaded. At Hălmagiu it is said that Chendi was captured by being cheated by a local hungarian lady whom he trusted. Another fact could be that he also had untrained men and was outnumbered. The same situation of outnumbering was at Poienari fight near Hălmagiu. At Târnava, it seems that romanians were getting well drunk a night before the battle and unable to fight next day. Even they outnumbered the hungarians, they were also poorly leaded and were indisciplined. At Brad, I dont know why Gal managed to win.

Csutak didnt had much fighting with organised romanians, he faced mostly guerilla type atacks from romanians. Csutak troops were almost completely raised from the ranks of civilians with almost no profesional soldiers. A good number of them were convicts from Oradea, as he says in his own memories. He had hard times keeping discipline in his troops ranks, as his men were more inclined to robery instead of fighting (he was concerned of keeping a fighting troops for his own survival, not for the wellfare of romanians he had to "pacify"). He had some fight with austrians in Lipova area if I rem well. He mainly ocupied his time killing the captured romanians who didnt managed to pay the ransome he asked or to sell for his own profit the cattles captured in the area. He was removed from duty for this deeds by hungarian authorities. At least a part of his memories are to be readed with caution. I have the memories of Csutak, in hungarian language, if you can read hungarian I can sent them by mail.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 21, 2012 08:53 pm
It will be great, thank you! You have my personal e-mail adress posted in ANDREAS forum adress. I forgot to mention the source of my posted informations: Atanasie Sandor -study over the events from 1848-49 in the Arad and Zarand counties.

I do not argue in terms of military training of many of major Gal men, but I insist on saying that there were regular formations as f.i. the small light cavalry force, which accompanied Gal troops, who came from regular imperial cavalry units (Chevauxleger Regiment Nr. 7 and Hussar Regiment Nr. 4). And I also mentioned the 1st Székely border guards battalion/14th Székely Regiment, that was, as the Romanian border guard units, a trained unit of the imperial army. I never expressed in any way, their effectiveness in fighting in front of trained units, but I tried to explain myself why in most of the battles waged in Halmagiu-Brad area, the Hungarian troops have won! This compared to the known failures of hungarian forces in fightings, in other parts of the Apuseni Mountains! This was what I wanted to explain (to myself and to others that might be curious), I think you understand now!
Because if we think better, in an open area, in the plaines, it's natural to expect, that a regular force (the Bem army f.i.) could win any fight with the romanian legions, in the mountains areas of Apuseni, the poorly trained and armed moti have won almost all battles that they took part!

Posted by: 21 inf January 21, 2012 09:34 pm
I didnt contested that Gal and others have some profesional troops, I tried just to contest the general mith that romanians were fighting always against a hungarian profesional army. By comparison, of course that hungarians have a much greater number of profesionals than romanians and in open space they could defeat a romanian force, but this was not the only reason: hungarians had the firepower superiority and a significant number of canons and rocket bateries. When romanians were well organised, armed and led, they could face hungarians with success. It is the case of Alba Iulia fortress, manned almost entirelly by romanians in austrian army. From 2.500 men garisoned in Alba Iulia, almost all were romanians, including some oficers. Urban's troops were also almost entirelly romanian and Urban was regarded by hungarians as one of the best of their enemies not only because of his military skills, but also for his men. Please sent me the study you named if you can.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 21, 2012 10:49 pm
The study that I mentioned contains 57 pages, it being part of a much larger document written by the same author, Atanasie Sandor called "Nescari urme din intamplarile anilor 1848 si 1849" that can't be found at the County Library. I've read this study at the library reading room, so I can only copy it at xerox and send it to you trough the post, because I can't send it trough mail (since I don't have a scanner to my computer!) If you want it I can make a xerocopy and send it to you trough post!

Posted by: 21 inf January 22, 2012 05:06 am
Ok, Andreas, please copy it and I'll sent a friend from Arad to take it and sent it to me.


Posted by: ANDREAS January 22, 2012 11:46 am
Ok, 21 inf, it's very good so!
I will send you a message as soon as I have the copy!
What do you think, is it appropriate to mention further the abuses and crimes committed against romanian civilians (mostly peasants) between July 1848 - August 1849 in Zarand and Arad counties, described in many details (including the names of the victims and the situations that created abuses or crimes) in the document that I mentioned? Or we violate certain sensitivities (some of our fellow forumists!), so we focus only on matters that didn't bother anyone?

Posted by: Dénes January 22, 2012 09:39 pm
Andreas, you shouldn't play the hypocrite. If there were trustfully documented war crimes, list them, mentioning the sources. But don't list only one side's, list them all! Bias is one of the most reprehensive approaches when dealing with history, and we have seen this attitude here, in this forum, occasionally.

The question still hangs on: what do you want to achieve by listing such gruesome details? What is your goal?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS January 22, 2012 11:59 pm
Andreas, you shouldn't play the hypocrite.

Denes, according to this source -
hypocrite is:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
which of the two fit me? huh.gif
Instead, if I say about you that you are at least rude, I can demonstrate it! What do you say, should I do it or not?
Highlighting the truth, though painful, is always necessary, because lies and misinformation do not come to dominate! Generally speaking, not customize at all!
According to Atanasie Sandor -Studiu asupra evenimentelor de peste munti din anii 1848-49 cu nararea celor intamplate in partile Aradului- there were two series of abuses against the Romanian population and, to a lesser extent, Serbian population in Arad County : the recruitments for the Hungarian Army in june-july-august 1848 as a first, and the repression against the Romanians who sympathized (few have actually been organized and supported by the imperial army in Arad County) with the imperial army, in september -october-november 1848, as a second.
I point out, that in the book appears, as a figure more benevolent towards minorities, to whose wishes he payed attention, Nicolae Wesselenyi, it is mentioned the existence of a bill for nationalities promoted by Wesselenyi, but whose initiative was rejected by the dieta!
About the bed treatments, tortures and crimes on Romanian population in the County of Arad, in the period June-July 1848, the author mentions, with names and description of the context in which it took place, a total of 32 Romanians (peasants, craftsmen, priests and teachers) people imprisoned in the Oradea Dungeon, where 4 died. The charge that they brought, was refusing to incorporate in the Hungarian army!
Another sad moment was the passage of Szekler troops in the Romanian villages on the Mures valley, with numerous robberies, ill-treatments, and with 2 romanians killed in Sambateni village and other 2 serbians tortured in Arad city.
In august-september 1848 has developed a recruiting expedition in the romanian villages from Siria -Nadab -Sintea Mica -Cermei -Zarand led by Hungarians guardists from Arad accompanied and supported by a subunit of the Schwarzenberg Uhlan Regiment Nr. 2, also partially responsible for crimes. The result of the expedition - 8 romanians killed, 10 tortured and other 12 arrested and imprisoned (4 of them later released). The actions were accompanied by lootings and confiscation of goods and money!
I may continue, it's just the beginning!

Posted by: 21 inf January 23, 2012 05:58 am
Atrocities occured on both sides and most of them are quite well documented. I would suggest if one has interess to discuss them, to open a separate topic. Personally I would prefere to discuss here about everything linked to 1848-49 in Transylvania, but NO about atrocities. There were so many killings outside battles on both sides that the talking would last indefinetelly. The irony is both sides recorded better the atrocities that the military events and I'm interested in military aspects. Let's keep it on military, please!

Posted by: ANDREAS January 23, 2012 06:24 pm
Agree 21 inf,
To be honest, the mention of atrocities committed on civilian population in the county of Arad, was not a result of my "anti-Hungarian pulse", but the surprize to discover that (me, that until few weeks known almost nothing about the events) many military actions had started as "punishment campaigns" against the "enemy" civilian population! I do not excuse myself at all, just explained my reaction to what I read! Moreover, as noted previously, the Imperial troops participated initially, as I mentioned (Schwarzenberg Uhlan Regiment Nr. 2), in the punitive actions against romanian peasants of the Hungarian national guards. Later, the same unit fought, until the end of the war, against Hungarian troops!
In the book is also highlighted the major Laszlo Gal led campaign on the Crisul Alb Valley, started as a punishment campaign against romanians, after the retreat towards Timisoara of the Schwarzenberg Uhlan Regiment Nr. 2 from Siria, the main military threat to them! His group of forces included one honved battalion (well armed with rifles, it's written), some militia companies from Arad, Bekes and Szalonta (armed especially with forks and lances) and a small cavalry detachment from the imperial army (who sided with the Hungarians, it's written) and support of two cannons. Gal deputy commander was Stefan Dunyov, a bulgarian from Vinga village. The first clash took place in Siria proper, but the cannon fire of the Hungarians disorganized the small group of Romanian who wanted to rezist! 8 romanians were killed after the battle, because they had weapons and opposed the Hungarian troops, other 9 were imprisoned. The local priest was also cut but survived. Many other punishments followed the next days! The expedition had a distinct note of robbery (or seizure), they take money and goods from local population as they whished! As a interesting detail (I do not know if it's real or not) in the battle of Tarnava described in the book, it's written that the hungarian forces had some losses too, but tried to hide them by undressing their dead from the uniformes, to say that only romanians were killed.
A similar expediton took place on the Mures valley led by major Máriássy János (or, at least some of his forces) including the Debrecen-based National Guard Battalion (well armed with rifles, it's written) led by major Zurics Ferenc and some militia troops from Zarand area (armed only with forks and lances). They go along the Mures valley from Lipova to Zam, with actions similar to those undertaken by the troops of Major Gal in the Crisul Alb valley. They were no fighting reported!

Posted by: Dénes January 23, 2012 06:55 pm
I would like to commend you, 21inf, for trying to maintain the original purpose of this interesting thread, and not letting it derail yet again into a one-sided accusation of crimes, killings, torture, etc., etc., purpotedly committed by Hungarians against Rumanians (of course, without mentioning the other side's similar crimes).

There is a separate thread for such things, so anyone eager to highlight war crimes is invited to post there, without highjacking every possible thread dealing with Rumanian-Hungarian military activity.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS January 24, 2012 05:07 pm
Trying to find a military reasoning (which I do not know if there was or not!) in the punitive expeditions in the valley of White Cris and Mures valley, it's possible that the Hungarian Command was trying to ensure the security of his back (knowing already the start of a military organization of Transylvanian Romanians) and prevention of a Romanian military organization in the Zarand and Mures valley regions! It's a speculation of course, that could not be taken anyway as a justification for the atrocities committed.
A fact which remained unknown or unheeded is the role of militias that accompanied the hungarian military units themselves. The weak-armed militias (similar armed as our popular forces from the legions or ceturies) had a more important role than it seems at first sight! They provide the scouts, sappers and communications elements, security for the main forces, as well as responsible for logistics, supply, repairs and other needs for the honved forces. Perhaps in the campaigns of Transylvania and later in the Apuseni Mountains this role has not appeared so obvious, but certainly it existed!
21 inf, have you noticed, studying documents that have passed through the hands, something like this, or you have a different opinion?

Posted by: ANDREAS January 24, 2012 08:42 pm
Actually if I think better, in the fall of 1848 the imperial forces had started its military actions in Transylvania, and I think this fact was known in Partium, so in Arad county as well. But I found no source to confirm my assumption!

Posted by: Dénes January 24, 2012 09:13 pm
Today I purchased a 500-page, large format reference book on the 1848-1849 Hungarian revolution (my first one on the topic), which gives a day-by-day account of the events.
Time permitting, I will try to look up some of the details mentioned in this thread.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf January 25, 2012 05:45 am
Denes, I am interested on the book you mentioned. Can you tell it's title and author, please?

Andreas: at least Gal and Csutak received orders to "pacify" the romanian "rebels" and were acompanied by political comisars. I suspect (and this is a personal opinion of mine) that at least these 2 expeditions were not based on military reasons but on political ones. At the time of the expeditions and on their areas of action the romanians were insuficient organised or completelly unorganised to represent even the smallest military threat. What I supose to be more military reasoned are Hatvani and Kemeny's atacks. They were not only aiming to destroy the better organised/trained Auraria Gemina Legion, but trying to ensure a safe back for hungarian army and the posible rockade (rocada) between hungarian line of comunications from Oradea-Cluj and Arad-Deva. However, the last hypothesis might be not a real option in 1849 due to the almost total lack of roads in Apuseni Mountains in that period, which made a rockade imposible for artilery and quite dificult for infantry and cavalry.

About hungarian national guards, some of them were better armed than romanians, some not. Gorgey shows in his memories that at least some hungarian national guards in southern Hungary were armed mostly with white weapons and that they refused to march if they dont received canons. Gorgey says that these national guards, receiving canons, returned almost all the time without them, loosing them to the enemy quite fast.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 27, 2012 10:01 pm
A problem that appeared after the readings I had taken (as questionable) is that of the relations between the romanian national guards and the austrian army, the "ally" in the fightings with the hungarian militia & szekler troops in late autumn 1848 in Transylvania. This is because the approx. 1200 rifles delivered to the Romanian national guards in that period by the "austrian ally" were obviously insufficient (without talking about the poor technical condition of many of them) for our troops and much of the nearly 800 weapons seized from the Hungarian militia by our legions had to be given to the Imperial Army after it taking control of all province in november 1848. Some hungarian leaders will use this attitude of our "austrian allies" in 1849, to persuade the Romanians to cross on the Hungarian side. What do you know about the attitude of General Puchner and his army (in relation with the Romanian National Council and the national guards) in the period october -december 1848 (before Bem's invasion)?

Posted by: ANDREAS January 27, 2012 11:41 pm
If someone is able to translate this, it will be wonderful:
The first document, reaching military issues, is apparently written in Romanian with (maybe) Slavic characters ... the second is in German and I will try to translate it myself...

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 08:13 am
The first one is in romanian with cyrilic characters. I'll translate it, you translate the german one smile.gif

The first one says:

"Nro. 2.
L. a.

Cătră Comitetul de Pacificaţiune al Românilor.

În împrejurările de faţă, când cele mai înalte interese şi cele mai sfinte drepturi atât ale fiecărui cetăţean şi ale naţiunilor întregi, cât şi ale tronului şi ale dinastiei, se află în mare primejdie din pricina întărâtorilor şi turburătorilor unei partide facţioase, care pentru a-şi mulţumi scopurile sale egoistice, lucrează neobosit prin întrebuinţare de putere şi silă ca să răstoarne ordinea civilă şi liniştea, şi să aducă cea mai înfiorătoare confuziune, precum şi ca să ţie necontenit terorismul şi întărâtarea deosebitelor naţionalităţi între dânsele, pe care a împins-o la cel înalt grad, datoria tuturor binecugetătorilor cetăţeni ai statului şi prieteni ai ordinei şi ai liniştii publice, precum şi ai sfintelor drepturi ale ţării şi ale tronului, este de a se împotrivi nemăsuratelor călcări nelegiuite ale acelii partide, şi pentru restabilirea ordinei şi a liniştii, precum şi pentru asigurarea adevăratei libertăţi şi egalităţi a tuturor naţionalităţilor, a se pune în poziţiune de apărare cuviincioasă împotriva acelii partide şi atacurilor ei.

Spre acest sfârşit Excelenţa sa D. Generariul Comendante al ţării, pe temeiul proclamaţiei din 18 a lunii curgătoare ce a slobozit către toate jurisdicţiunile şi către locuitorii Transilvaniei, şi în puterea guvernului ţării, ce în virtutea acelei proclamaţii a priimit pe cât timp vor ţinea împrejiurările extraordinare de acum, către aceasta luând în băgare de seamă că atât naţiunea română, cât şi cea săsească în multe chipuri şi-au exprimat voinţa şi singure de sine au făcut propunere, a găsit cu cale de a orândui ca să se facă o recrutaţie din amândouă naţiunile, în cercurile de jurisdicţiune şi în satele ce sunt în dispoziţiune, spre a completa corpurile de trupe patriotice ce se află în ţară adică: al treilea batalion din regimentul de infanterie Leiningen nro. 31, întâiul şi al treilea batalion din regimentul de infanterie Arhiducele Karl Ferdinand nro. 51, trei companii ale batalionului al treilea din regimentul de infanterie Cavalerul de Turski nro. 62, trei divizii din batalionul de grenadiri Baron Uraca, precum şi spre a se forma o divizie de rezervă pentru regimentul Leiningen, şi alta pentru regimentul Arhiducele Karl Ferdinand, pentru care toate se cere un număr trebuincios de 3745 oameni, şi tot deodată să se formeze din nou un batalion de iagheri în număr de 1253 oameni, şi prin porunca de la 22 octombrie 1848 nro. 4300 şi de la 25 octombrie nro. 4321 a însărcinat cu aducerea la îndeplinire a acestii orânduieli pe Comitetul de apărarea ţării ce s-a întocmit de către Excelenţa sa sub preşedinţia subtînsemnatului.

În urmarea aceştia, fiind că populaţia săsească către cea română, în cercurile de jurisdicţiune ce stau astăzi în dispoziţiunea Excelenţei sale, este cam ca 1 către 4 se hotărăşte, ca completarea numitelor trupe ale ţării, dimpreună şi cu rezervele ce trebue să se formeze în numărul trebuincios de 3745, să se facă numai din populaţia română; iar noul batalion de iagheri, care se va numi batalionul de iagheri saso-transilvani, se va forma numai din populaţia săsească.

Cât pentru presentaţia şi asentaţia recrutelor după acest masstab, se hotărăsc şi se publică următoarele reguli, care se vor păzi fără sminteală şi se vor aduce la îndeplinire fără cea mai mică întârziere:
1.Locuri de asentaţie se hotărăsc: Sibiul, Braşovul, Mediaşul, Sassebeşul şi Haţegul.
2.Împărţirea cvantumului de recrute, ce fiecare cerc e dator a presenta la locurile de asentaţie după deosebirea naţiunilor, se va vedea în tabela de împărţire ce se alătură aici. Fiindcă poziţiunea comitatului Belgradului de Jos este deosebită, şi a Belgradului de Sus şi mai deosebită, pentru presentaţia recrutelor din acest comitat nu se hotărăşte loc deschilinit, şi rămâne ca satele să-şi aleagă după voe cel mai aproape loc din cele cinci locuri de asentaţie.
3.Recrutaţia celor 1253 oameni, ce cad pe naţiunea săsească pentru batalionul de iagheri saşi, se va îndeplini de către Universitatea naţiunei săseşti prin subordinatele jurisdicţiuni de scaune şi districte, afară de districtul Bistriţii, care nu se coprinde acum între cercurile ce sînt în dispoziţiunea Excelenţei sale D. Generariu Comendante, căci acesta are să-şi dea contingentul său la trupele ce sînt aşezate în partea despre miază noapte a Transilvaniei.
Recrutaţia celor 3745 oameni ce cad pe naţiunea română pentru completarea trupelor ţării şi pentru formarea rezervelor, se va aduce la îndeplinire de către Comitetul Român prin Tribunii orânduiţi pentru cercurile române prin înţelegere cu jurisdicţiunile săseşti, care au să privighieze ca să nu se împiedice îndeplinirea presentaţiei recrutelor, în cât se atinge aceasta de cercurile jurisdicţiunilor lor.
4.Atât Universitatea naţiunei săseşti şi subordinatele sale jurisdicţiuni, cât şi Comitetul român şi orânduiţii Tribuni români, luând în băgare de seamă sila împrejiurările de faţă, când lucrul nu iartă cea mai mică întârziere, trebue să aducă la îndeplinire presentaţia recrutelor cu asfel de grabăneprecurmată ziua şi noaptea, încât toată recrutaţia să fie fără sminteală săvârşită la 6 noembrie, şi tot cvantumul de recrute atât dela Saşi, cât şi dela Români să se presenteze până atunci negreşit. Spre acest sfârşit
5.Jurisdicţiunile săseşti şi Tribunii români sînt datori ca mai întâi să caute şi să cerceteze pe recrute în locurile pretoriale prin doctorul cercului sau prin altul, spre a presenta la comisiile de asentaţie, în locurile de asentaţie, numai oameni sănătoşi, puternici şi buni de slujbă soldăţească; şi pentru ca să se poată alege cei mai buni, totdeauna să ducă pe jumătate mai mulţi oameni, decât e îndatorată după împărţire a da fiecare jurisdicţiune sau sat. În asfel de chip, spre pildă, un loc, care are să dea zece recrute, e dator să ducă la locul de asentaţie, cel puţin 15 oameni aleşi cu îngrijire de cătră mai marele respectiv al locului şi de cătră doctorul, şi aflaţi de buni pentru slujbă.
6. Spre a se putea urma asentaţia cu neprecurmare şi a nu se pricinui deodată prea mare îmbulzială, jurisdicţiunile şi Tribunii vor îngriji, ca îndată ce se va aduna un cvantum de recrute, numai decât să-l trimiţă la locul de asentaţie, făr’ a aştepta să se strângă tot cvantumul ce e dator să dea cercul întreg.
7. Spre a nu risipi prea mult puterile garnizoanelor militare, nu se vor întrebuinţa comenzi militare pentru escortarea recruţilor la locurile de asentaţie; ci această escortaţie se va face din partea civilă prin paznicii săi sau prin gardisti.
8.Din partea jurisdicţiunilor şi a Tribunilor se vor trimite recruţii la locurile de asentaţie totdeauna cu o însemnare, în care se va cuprinde numele, vârsta, locul naşterii, naţionalitatea recrutelor, şi starea în care s-au aflat de către doctor.
9.Despre o parte pentru a avea mai mulţi oameni din care săse aleagă recruţii, şi pe de altă parte pentru a se insufla oamenilor mai multă aplecare pentru starea militară, vârsta de priimire pentru recruţi se întinde dela 18-lea an până la al 38-lea, măsura mărimei se coboară la 5 şuhuri, se dă plată îndoită pe toată ziua câte 8 kr. argint, şi timpul capitulaţiei se hotărăşte numai 3 ani cu deosebitul folos, că timpul slujbei ce se petrece în război, soldatului cu capitulaţie i se hotărăşte îndoit, în cât, spre pildă, şase luni de slujbă în război, se socotesc un an întreg, şi un an şi jumătate petrecut în război, se socoteşte drept tot timpul capitulaţiei de trei ani.
10.Asentaţia în locurile de asentaţie se face de către Comisiile de asentaţie deocamdată făr’ a se împărţi în vreun regiment; asemenea şi aprovizionarea din ziua asentaţiei până la împărţire se face la olaltă neîmpărţit.
11. Îndată ce s-a presentat cvantumul de recrute şi s-au asentat, se trimit toate decătre Comisiile de asentaţie subt escortă cuviincioasă la Sibii spre a se împărţi mai departe şi a se trimite la deosebitele corpuri de trupe, afară de recrutele naţionalităţii române din Mediaş care sînt hotărâte pentru completarea trupelor ţării – Ce se atinge de recrutele naţionalităţii săseşti pentru batalionul de iagheri, aceste toate se trimit la Sibii.

Excelenţa sa D. Generariul Comendante aşteptând cu încredinţare atât dela jurisdicţiuni cât şi dela populaţia săsească şi română, că luând în băgare de seamă înaltele interese despre care se lucrează în timpul de faţă pentru mântuirea patriei şi a tronului, şi pentru apărarea drepturilor şi a libertăţilor atât ale naţiunii române cât şi ale celii săseşti, vor întrebuinţa toate mijloacele spre a sprijini cu toată râvna dorinţele sale, şi vor aduce la îndeplinire completarea c.c. trupe până la hotărâtul termin negreşit, invită pe Comitet ca fără cea mai mică întârziere să ia măsurile cele mai potrivite şi să întrebuinţeze toată puterea influenţei sale spre a îndeplini aceste orânduieli ale Excelenţei sale cât se va putea mai curând şi mai punctual.

Sibiiu 14/26 octombrie 1848
Pfersman, m.p.

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 08:25 am
Împărţirea recruţilor ce au să dea jurisdicţiunile săseşti şi satele româneşti, care sînt în dispoziţiune, pe trei ani, socotindu-se un an de slujbă în război drept doi ani
Scaunul, districtul sau comitatul Au să dea Locul de asintaţie
Saşii Românii
Scaunul Sibiului 278 327 Sibiiul
Scaunul Mediaşului 146 100 Mediaşul
Scaunul Sighişoarei 115 45
Scaunul Cincului Mare 102 57 Sibiiul
Scaunul Cohalmului 96 69
Scaunul Sassebeşului 22 75 Sassebeşul
Scaunul Miercurii 24 88
Scaunul Nocrihului 29 50 Sibiiul
Scaunul Orăştii 11 107 Sassebeşul
Districtul Braşovului 334 335 Braşovul
Comitatul Hinidoarei - 810 Haţegul
Districtul Făgăraşului 12 336 Sibiiul
Comitatul Cetăţii de Baltă - 297 Mediaşul
Comitatul Bălgradului de Jos - 955 cel mai aproape loc de asentaţie
Comitatul Bălgradului de Sus - 94
13 sate săseşti din Comitatul Cetăţii de Baltă 84 -Mediaşul
Summa 1253 3747

edit: I coulndt insert the table, so the figures looks like above on this post. I hope it can be understand what it mean.

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 01:26 pm

Transcripting in romanian with latin letters here:

Comitetul Naţiunei Române cătră
canonici, vicari, protopopi şi preoţi de ambe riturile, Prefecţi, Tribuni, Centurioni, Decurioni, Judeci, şi cătră toţi ceilalţi români.

Aduceţi-vă aminte fraţilor! Că v-aţi legat cu jurământ înaintea lui Dumnezeu şi a oamenilor, că nu vă veţi scula asupra nimănui, care nu să va scula asupra voastră, v-aţi jurat că nu veţi păgubi pe nimene, şi nu veţi prăda (averea? indescifrabil în text) nimănui şi cumcă veţ da pace fiecărui om, ca să trăiască în pace de voi, şi să poruncească peste averea sa nesupărat de nimene. Cum vreţi şi voi ca să vă dee pace tot omul, şi să nu se atingă nimene de persoana şi de averea voastră.
Comitetul v-au făcut cunoscute toate poruncile înălţatului împărat, şi ale înaltului generariu-commando, ca să nu poată zice nici unul, cumcă greşeşte din neştiinţă; totuşi cu mare durere e silit comitetul a auzi din mai multe părţi ale ţării acesteia, că românii predează averile domnilor şi ale altoru oameni, se scoală nu numai asupra celor necredincioşi înaltului împărat, împotriva cărora sînt detori a se oşti la poruncă, şi după povăţuirea ofiţirilor împărăteşti, dar cumcă se scoală chiar şi asupra celor credincioşi înălţatului împărat, şi opresc din drum, îi leagă, îi batjocoresc; ba unii şi la atâta răutate au venit, de opresc în drum şi îi leagă chiar şi pe cei ce călătoresc cu dreptăţi dela înaltul generariu-commando şi dela comitet, şi ucid şi pe cei desarmaţi, fac prădăciuni, şi acum au început a se bate chiar români împotriva românilor, nu ascultă de mai marii lor, şi ameninţă cu aprinderi şi cu moarte locuitorilor celor păciuiţi.
Fraţi români! Comitetul s-au scârbit la auzul acestor fapte nelegiuite, şi văzând, că din aseminea fapte nu poate să urmeze alta peste voi, fără numai o nefericire mai mare, de cât au fost aceea cu care v-aţi luptat până acum!
În aceste împrejurări înfiorătoare, şi insuflătoare de cea mai mare îngrijire pentru viitorul românilor, comitetului numai acea mângâiare i-au mai rămas, că nelegiuirile acestea, prădările averilor şi năpăstuirile oamenilor, nu le fac, fără numai nişte oameni (... indescifrabil în text) care naţiunea română să înfiorează, şi pe cari îi blastămă ca pe nişte prăpădiţi, carii fac ruşine naţiunei întregi.
Însă ca să nu împedece fericirea naţiunei întregi nişte prăpădiţi ca aceştia, comitetul porunceşte de nou şi strâns tuturor românilor de fie ce plasă, atât preoţilor, cât şi mirenilor, cetăţenilor, şi sătenilor din tot ţinutul Ardealului, deosebit tuturor mai marilor, judecilor, juraţilor, prefecţilor, tribunilor, centurionilor, decurionilor, ca să publice toate poruncile, care vin dela înaltul generariu-commando prin comitetu, prin ofiţiarii împărăteşti şi prin celelalte jurisdicciuni.
Prefecţii să le dee tribunilor, aceştia să le trimită centurionilor din fiecare sat şi cetate, ca să le publice oamenilor de câte ori să vor aduna la vreo deprindere.
Aşişderea sînt îndetoraţi şi preoţii tuturor popoarelor fără de alegere dacă sînt uniţi sau neuniţi, a vesti cu cea mai mare scumpătate toate poruncile, şi a le vesti de mai multe ori, deosebitu cele şese punturi tipărite dela comitetu în 21/9 Octobrie a. c. să le publice, şi să le republice în toate duminicile şi sărbătorile, să le tâlcuiască în împreună înţelegere cu prefecţii, tribunii şi centurionii.
Preoţii să reporteze la protopopi, aceştia la episcopi, centurionii la tribuni, aceştia la prefecţi, cari vor înştiinţa în urmă pe comitetu, cumcă s-au vestit poruncile pretutindene şi se împlinesc.
Preoţii şi toţi mai marii românilor, să aibă grijă ca să-şi apere cinstea lor şi a naţiunei prin purtarea cea bună, să nu o păteze cu lăcomia averei străine, şi cu alte fapte nevrednice de creştin, de român, să aibă grijă, ca să se ţină rândul bun, şi să fie linişte între oameni; pentru aceea se îndetoresc toţi a asculta de mai marii lor, şi de poruncile, care se vestesc pentru ţinerea bunei orândueli, şi a păcii publice, pentru ajutorarea celor prădaţi de vrăjmaşi, pentru recrutaţiune, eşirea la castre ş. a.
Oamenii şi satele, care au jelbi în pricina locurilor, a pădurilor, şi a altor procesuri de acest feliu, să aştepte până ce se va aşeza ţara, şi se vor pune deregători, atunci toate procesele se vor lua la judecată, şi se va face dreptate fiecăruia, eară până atunci nimene să nu îndrăznească a-şi face destul cu puterea, căci unii ca aceia se vor pedepsi ca nişte călcători de legi, şi necredincioşi înălţatului împărat.
Oamenii cei ce se întorc acasă din castre, să nu îndrăznească subtu perderea capului a jefui, nici a se certa subtu grea pedeapsă, cu cei ce n-au fost în castre, pentru că aceştia vor merge de aci înainte.
Încă din 9 Octobrie s-au vestit porunca ca să nu îndrăznească nimenea a se atinge de averea altuia, fie acela unguru, fie românu, sau ori de ce neam; acum de nou şi strâns se porunceşte tuturor, ca să nu îndrăznească nimene a se atinge nici chiar de averea rebelilor, pentru că aceasta nu este a răpitorilor, ci este o avere, despre care vor face rânduială cei mai mari.
În urmă aduce aminte comitetul tuturor românilor, că pentru încunjurarea anarhiei, fiecare călcătoriu a înaltelor porunci se va pedepsi cu cele mai straşnice pedepse, şi unii ca aceia se pun în primejdie de a-şi perde capul.
Sibiiu, 25/13 Noembrie 1848
Simeon Bărnuţiu, preşedinte
A.T. Laurianu
Tim. Cipariu
Nicolae Bălăşescu
Ioanne Branu
Florianu Micaşu

Fraţi români.
De când ungurii cu terorismul lor cel barbar au îndrăznit a vărsa sângele cel nevinovat al fraţilor noştri români, a-i spânzura şi a-i răstigni, de atunci vin plânsori în toate zilele la înaltul General-Comando, şi la Comitetu, cumcă românii încă fac nelegiuiri şi fapte de acelea, care nici n-ar trebui să se pomenească între oameni.
Cu mare durere au înţeles acestea Comitetul, şi ca să nu se mai întâmple, porunceşte straşnic tuturor românilor:
1. Să nu îndrăznească nimene a se atinge nici de persoana, nici de averea altuia, fie acela de ce neam va fi, român, ungur, ovreu, sau ori de ce neam, pentru că toţi oamenii au drepturi de o potrivă la viaţa şi la averea lor, şi tuturor cu aceeaşi cinste suntem datori.
2. Cei ce pun armele jos, şi prin aceea arată că nu vreu să se bată asupra nimănui, unii ca aceia să n-aibă nici o bântuială sau supărare, ci din protivă să se apere de ori ce asuprire, şi ei şi averea lor.
3. Să nu îndrăznească nimene a supăra, a împedeca, sau ori în ce chip a bântui pe călătorii păciuiţi, ci din protivă să dea pace fiecine călătorilor, ba încă după putinţă să şi înlesniască călătoria unul altuia.
4. Comitetul porunceşte strâns tuturor românilor, ca pe lângă împlinirea acestora să asculte de Maimarii Comunităţilor, de Prefecţi, Tribuni, Centurioni, Decurioni, de Bătrânii comunităţilor, şi de toţi Maimarii lor cei legiuiţi, şi să plătească darea împărătească şi celelalte aruncături, fără împotrivire.
5. Toţi maimarii aceştia sînt datori a priveghia, ca oamenii să nu se dea la beţie, şi la alte eccessuri, să păzească comunităţile şi averea fiecăruia, fie nemeş, fie de altă plasă, de ori ce păgubire, iară cele ce s-ar fi luat până acum pe nedrept, toate lucrurile acelea să se dea îndărăt proprietarilor lor; fieşcecare sat e datoriu a răspunde pentru toate pagubele, care se fac în sat;
6. Ori cine ar îndrăzni a lucra împotriva acestor porunci şi oprelişti, fie acela satu întreg, sau mai mulţi oameni, sau numai unul singur, unii ca aceia se vor supune sub judecată de războiu, şi fiecare după vina sa cu straşnice pedepse se va pedepsi.
În urmă comitetul aduce aminte românilor, că se se poarte aşa cum s-au purtat până la această catastrofă, şi, ferindu-se de toate nedreptăţile, să dovedească şi de aci înainte, cumcă au fost şi sînt vrednici de libertate.
Sibiiu 2/19 Octombrie 1848.
Comitetul Naţiunii Române:
A.Treb. Laurianu, Simeon Bărnuţiu, Nicolae Bălăşescu, Timoteu Cipariu, Florianu Micaşu, Ioanne Brannu

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 02:58 pm
Letter of Axente Sever for mobilisation, 14 december 1848

Fraţilor români!
Încă din copilăriă auziam pre oameni zicând că nu e bine, sînt pre mulţi oameni pre pământ, nu le mai ajunge pământu nu le mai ajunge nimica, ar fi bine de ar da Dumnezeu vreo bătaie sau alt rău ca se se mai împuţineze oamenii, acum s-au împlinit cererea şi dorinţa oamenilor, Dumnezeu au lăsat să fie bătaie, noi trebue să ne batem.
Însă ca să ne putem bate, şi să putem şi învinge pre vrăşmaş trebuie să fin toţi într-un cuget cu o inimă, cu curagiu şi ascultători pentru ca să putem ajunge peste tot locu, şi să nu rămânem de scădere nici în o parte s-au ales tot oamenii cei cu ajutoriu pentru laghere mai de parte, aceştia s-au înscris de nou şi nu are voie neci nu este iertat nice unuia din ei a merge sau a şedea acasă pentru aceea centurionele din sat chiar şi sătenii îndată ce vor simţi că vre unu e acasă, îl vor globi nu mai de cât un zlot bun, şi apoi îl vor trimite la lagher cu scrisoare în care să fie pusă zioa când lu plecat aseminea centurionele va îngriji să se trimită haine la feciorii din lagher scriind notariu sau preotul satului numele fie căruia pe haina sa.
Ceia lalţi săteni carii sînt înscrişi la gardă însă sînt singuri şi fără ajutoriu chiar şi aceia carii au fraţi feciori, sau servitori în lagher, sau în cătane, dacă nu sînt trecuţi de 50 ani aseminea vor fi detori a ave toţi câte o lance şi vor forma o companiă, împărţită în 4 ducturi (ţuguri), din care 2 la vreme de trebuinţă încă să poată merge în lagher pe câte 8 zile şi apoi vor înschimba cele lalte 2 ducturi ce rămăsese acasă.
Am înţeles că pe multe locuri să încurcă lucrurile şi nu ştiu oamenii de cine să asculte, --- în tot satu este căpitan, şi jude, în cele ce sînt pentru dare, (indescifrabil în text), dători, poştării, drumuri, veţi asculta de jude, eară în cele ce sunt pentru paza satului pentru lagher, şi pentru mustră de centurionii la care se vor porunci tribuni şi eu la jude înspectori şi administratoriul şi aşa să vor curma încurcăturele.
Tot satu va coace pentru feciorii săi pită şi o va trimite la lagher cu scrisoare dar aşa cât tot fecioru să capete o pită pe 2 zile necurmat până va ţinea lagheru, -- ori care săteni nu vor împlini acestea vor cădea supt gloabă de un zlot bun de tot gardistu, şi în primejdiă de a cădea sub iobăgiă.
Fraţi preoţi dascăli şi cei mai înţelepţi sînt provocaţi, a ceti mai de multe ori aceasta şi alte ordinăciuni care vor mai veni, şi a deştepta pre oameni, punându-să înşii în frunte cu toată inima. Au trecut timpul de a să mai teme cineva şi a nu păşi înainte cu toate puterile, trebuie să învingem, sau să murim, că nime nu va avea pardon.
Blaj, 14 dec.
Ioanne Auxinţiu Severu
Prefectu leg. 1 prim.

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 03:35 pm
Letter from 20 december 1848, I suspect it is a letter from Avram Iancu, even it is not signed, I believe I readed about it in some books.

Frate centurione
Fiindu că mulţi din cei înscrişi, carii sînt 2 şi 3 în o casă rămasără din blăstămăţia dela Hoidin şi fiind că noi nu avurăm timp ai globi după cum să otărâsă; te însărcinăm pe d-ta ca să globeşti pe fie care câte cu 12 zloţi. --- afară de tribunatu dă-i unde să pusă din greşală 5 zloţi buni şi unde încă să iartă 30 cr. carii nu vor avea bani vor da bucate în preţu de bani, din care să va face un magazin, vei însămna cu preotul sau cu notariu satului dela cine, ce şi cât ai luat, aseminea vei face şi cu cei ce să vor retrage în venitoriu dela lagher, ţinându-te de ordinăciunea din decem. a.c. Ca adecă cei cu ajutoriu să rămână totu de una în lagher, eară cei singuri să se părânde schimbându-să tot la 8 zile pre cei ce să vor înpotrivi la acestea îi vei însemna, ca când voi putea veni eu, tribunu sau vice tribunu să-i putem ave curând la mână, şi să-i pedepsim milităreşte.
Pentru a mai uşura greutăţile şi necazurile care le sufere oamenii de o cam dată să dă voiă fie cărui sat, ca să lasă pre toţi oamenii carii au fost şi sînt şi acum în lagher să-şi aducă câte un car de lemne, însă ca să nu să facă mişelii şi pagube mari d-ta te vei înţelege cu îngrijitoriu acelei păduri, care va fi la sat, sau în lipsa acestuia cu preotul şi cu cei mai cu minte săteni, şi vei pune să se taiă un colţu de pădure, mai măruntă sau de tot bătrână, oamenii cei fără vite vor tăia şi vor face atâtea sorţi, câţi oameni vor fi fost şi sînt în lagher cei cu cară vor aduce mai întâi soartea celor fără vite şi apoi a lor, --- dacă la un sat nu va fi pădure de loc, acest sat îşi va face sorţile sale în o pădure domnească, sau în acea pădure la alt sat unde şi-au făcut şi până acum, înţelegându-să mai întâi cu căpitanu şi cu sătenii acelui loc.
Vei recvira --- vei cere dela fie care curte după câtimea bucatelor care vor fi 20 --- 40, 60 până la o 100 ferdele de grâu, despre care vei da cvitanţiă şi apoi vei trimite la moară, --- şi fărina o vei pune în trun magazinu din care să să poată coace pâne câtă să va porunci, cocându-să şasă pite bune din o ferdelă, când vei trimite pânea vei primi cvientanţia despre câte ai dat ca să te poţi legitima înaintea ori cui de ce ai luat şi de ce ai dat, dacă nu veţi avea locu bun de făină unde să o grijiţi sau vă veţi teme de furat o veţi trimite la Blaj şi d. magazinariu după ce va măsura câtă aţi adus vă va da cvintanţiă unde nu vor fi bucate trierate nici deregători la curte care să vă dee, veţi pune pre cei singuri de pe acasă să triere sub înspecţiunea fsotului (? nu înţeleg în text – fostului?) jude domnesc a căpitanului şi controla preotului; şi veţi îmblăti mereu îngrijind ca să nu să fure nici să nu să prădeze nici fir, pentrucă bătaia poate să ţină mai mult timp şi în urmă poate să murim de foame, însă până atunci acum numai decât să luaţi dela toată casa a 3 parte din făina ce să va afla să o coaceţi şi să o trimiteţi numai decât la lagher.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 28, 2012 05:50 pm
You did an excellent job 21 inf! Thank you very much!
What I didn't entirely understand is if the 3745 people who had to be given by the Romanians, would be incorporated in the three Austrian regiments mentioned there or would be only subordinated to the command of these regiments? In other words would they become imperial soldiers (armed and equipped properly) or remain as territorial troops (militias) led by romanian tribuns? I assume that the last version, isn't it?
I'll soon finish translating the german one!

Posted by: 21 inf January 28, 2012 06:49 pm
They will remain imperial soldiers under regular military austrian command. They would be NO romanian militia. It was the same case as at 1st and 2nd romanian border regiments, were some of the young romanians who volunteered were transformed in imperial soldiers. Even one comander of a romanian legion (prefect) join austrian army and became imperial soldier. Some of Axente Sever's men who entered in Alba Iulia fortress in late May 1849 were asked to join the army if they want and doing so, they became regular imperial soldiers. As far as I readed (but not having certain figures) most of the imperial soldiers who fought in 1848-49 in Transylvania were romanians (doesnt matter if they were from border regiments or Karl Ferdinand, Uracca, Max Ferdinand or Leiningen regiments).

Posted by: ANDREAS January 29, 2012 12:55 pm
The translation of General Puchner Proclamation:
"With deep sorrow I have to hear news, that notwithstanding my proclamation of 9th and October 18th this year, that even now, as earlier, widely in the country violence and atrocities against helpless and defenseless people, as well as even to women, children and old people perpetrated, added on the murder scenes and the horrors of pillage and fire.
Even if the enemy, which occurs armed against our goods and holy cause, we must render harmless: yet is the duty of civilization, humanity and religion, atrocities that nobody needed, but merely reproduce revenge and bitterness, just as pointless devastations, we must avoid, and defenseless co-citizens, old men, women and children we must spare.
Since the attitude of such disregard punishable acts in the present circumstances happen under the task given to the troops by the General Commando: hereby so ordered, that in every garrison, headed by an officer with the assistance of four members, as much as possible should bring to the knowledge of the different nationalities to end all cases of violence against innocent and defenseless people, as well as of robbery, murder and arson in the places where they stationed, also in the neighborhood fast and rigorous surveys, and the criminals that they met doing so, legal treatment and punishment will be handed down.
Should follow a similar procedure the Officers who responding of the various Landsturm- military formations, to maintain order and discipline in those.
I therefore expect with confidence that this orders, aiming humanity itself and the interest of our good cause, with arrangements made to be spread throughout the country, will be followed unswervingly.
Hermannstadt (Sibiu) at 26 October 1848.
Anton Freiherr v. Puchner
Field Marshal Lieutenant and Commanding General"

Posted by: 21 inf January 29, 2012 01:59 pm
Thanks for the translation, Andreas!

Posted by: ANDREAS January 29, 2012 05:18 pm
One of the first offensive action aimed toward Abrud, took place in 19-23 January 1849 (lead by major Beké József with some 3.500 troops (including the 1st Battalion/1st Szekler Border Infantry Regiment nr. 14, Biharer Nationalguard Light Cavalry Division, a detachment of an U/I Honved Battalion) and 6 guns (6-pdr field guns) in the direction Halmagiu-Baia de Criş-Brad-Crişcior-Buceş. It is written in the book (I.Pârva-Drumuri în Ţara Zarandului, 1983) that in late january 1849 the offensive action towards Abrud was stopped by the moti troops led by Ioan Buteanu. Do you know more about this fight?

Posted by: 21 inf January 29, 2012 08:41 pm
Yes, I know about it, but I am not sure that the mission of Beke was toward Abrud. All the previous mission before him were aimed at Brad or Zarand generally speaking. I suspect that at least some fighting occured as a result of hungarian troop movement on Arad-Brad-Deva comunication as some reinforcement were sent from Hungary to Bem via Arad. Csutak says in his memories that he also fight near Buces, but I am not quite sure that he speaks the truth on that part of his memories. It was not imposible that some hungarian troops hit Buces, as there was a romanian strong point manned by Buteanu and his men.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 29, 2012 08:54 pm
It's exactly as I suspected, 21 inf,
I also believed that, and by reading Czetz memories I am more confident to be near the truth, because he mentions a detachment of troops which he met near the city of Deva (the Bihar light cavalry division), who previously had fought under major Beké József command in Zarand County (and occupied Brad from romanian forces). I guess it wasn't a major fight otherwise it would have been mentioned (by either romanian or hungarian side)! The fact that the Brad city(have no ideea if back than it was a city of not!) was later taken back by romanian forces (17 february 1849) shows that Major Beke forces were much weaker than the 3500 soldiers that occupied Brad in 23 january 1849! Some of these forces were intended for other missions -such as reinforcing Bem's army!

Posted by: 21 inf January 30, 2012 06:55 am
From my sources Beke started his expedition on mid January 1849 from Arad. At 19 January he was in front of Hălmagiu were he had a big fight with Buteanu, who had 150 riflemen and a good number of "lăncieri". Romanians were pushed back and Beke entered Hălmagiu. During night Buteanu gathered his routed forces and next morning he agains atacked Beke. He was again pushed back and withdrew toward Brad, his rearguard fighting at each step. Beke arived at Baia de Criş in the same day, but he needed 3 aditional days to reach Brad. He stayed at Brad 1 month, in this time raiding and pillaging romanian villages from the neighboorhood.

Andreas, could you sent me the copied book of mr. Pârva, please (photo, xerox, doesnt matter, as I dont have it)?

Posted by: ANDREAS January 30, 2012 08:20 pm
21 inf,
do you mean the study I mentioned "Atanasie Sandor -Studiu asupra evenimentelor de peste munti cu nararea celor intamplate in partile Aradului"? Or, if you want I could make a copy of the entire book 307 pages (from which only 227 are excerpts and comments after the original documents of the time) called "Memorialistica revolutiei de la 1848 in Transilvania", Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 1988. There are 13 chapters from of various authors based on original documents or writings just after the revolution. Write me if you want a copy of the whole book, or after the 13 chapters of memoirs or just after the study I spoke about.

Posted by: ANDREAS January 30, 2012 09:54 pm
In the same book (I mentioned before) I found, only in Romanian translation (the original document was written in german), a petition to Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria by the National Assembly of Romanians of militarized villages belonging to the 1st Romanian Regiment (Grenzinfanterieregiment Nr. 16) from Orlat. This petition is dated September 11, 1848, and is signed by David Urs from Margineni, lieutenant, Mihail Novac de Hunedoara, lieutenant, Ioan Moldovan and Anton Vestimianu, vicars ("paroh"), Ioan Banciu and Constantin Stezar, communal lecturer ("docent comunal"). Although the document is difficult to read (is written in a archaic Romanian from that period) he summarizes the same wishes from the National Assembly in Blaj, f.i. rejection of the union with Hungary, equal national rights for all nationalities in Transylvania, rejection of the recruitment of Romanians for the Hungarian Army, a.o. On the other hand it is interesting to note that in early October 1848 3 border infantry companies from that Regiment were send to guard the passes from Zam, Dobra and Poarta de Fier, 2 border infantry companies were sended to Sighisoara, and one border infantry battalion (5 border infantry companies) were send to Alba Iulia fortress. This battalion replaced the 1st Battalion of the 51. Karl Ferdinand Line Infantry Regiment send to Cluj. This imperial battalion was formed, it is written, in majority of Romanians, and they speak in their own language with the soldiers of the border infantry battalion. Thus confirming the information given by you that the other imperial units in Transylvania (31. Leiningen, 51. Karl Ferdinand and 62.Turszky Regiments) the romanians were present in large numbers, even in majority.

Posted by: 21 inf January 31, 2012 01:01 am
Yes, in 11 september 1848 was the gathering of romanian soldiers from Orlat Romanian Border Regiment. They expressed their will to subscribe to Blaj romanian declaration. Later in that day it was held a civilian romanian gathering at Orlat stating the same issues. Axente Sever and Treboniu Laurian were present. 200 romanians joined Axente and march toward Blaj to participate to the 3rd Romanian National Gathering from Blaj. En route they made military training under supervision of lt. Jovian Brad from Orlat Border Regiment. Eventually Axente will arive at Blaj with 2.000 men from 200 initially.

Aproximatelly on the same time a national gathering occured on 2nd Border Regiment from Năsăud with the same result as in Orlat. A petition was sent to austrian emperor and thousands of romanian volunteered for the regiment.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 01, 2012 11:21 pm
Returning to military conflict theme, Czetz mention the hungarian battle group (led by major Beke) from Zarand area, which was in action from December 1848 in Halmagiu - Brad region, as the "Observation Corps", described, it's true, as unimportant (numerically insignificant), expressing somehow his regret (indirectly) about its withdrawal from the area in February 1849 (as this Corps participated in the battles with the imperial troops in the south-west of Transylvania). He said that for major Beke was formed a new "Observation Corps" in Oradea, it's core made by 800 german Legionnaires from the Totenkopf-Legion. But this new-raized corps was put under the command of an incompetent military from Bem's Army, Major Koloman Csutak. He said "This good man entirely proved his military incompetence most clearly by his actions. It was during the months of March and April (1849), that he couldn't win a better position than that from Baia de Cris (where Beke was) to Brad, a distance of several German miles, and this in an era where Bem's triumphs, impressed the Romanians with their known fanaticism very much, so that they withdrew in the highest forests and other remote areas at long distances from the places where Hungarian Military stood and dared to gather only there."
From Csutak memoirs he described his forces on February 19, 1849:
-the 27-th honved battalion, with (only) 800 men,
-a century from the German Totenkopf Legion -155 men,
-half-squadron cavalry, assembled from Sandor and Vilmos Hussar Regiments -56 men,
-two companies of Salonta National Guard with a total of 400 men,
-one company of Bihar National Guard with (only) 206 men,
-a company of 164 Guerilla Fighters,
-two pieces of 1pdr, and one piece of 3pdr cannons and its wagons -32 men,
Total - 1,813 fighters
It would be interesting to know what were the forces available to the Buteanu's legion that faced the hungarians in this battles. So that we can form a picture of the relative strength of the two sides in conflict (this criteria is relative obviously, because Romanian forces hadn't similar military equipment or training as their opponents /or at least, as some of them/).

Posted by: 21 inf February 02, 2012 05:15 am
At the begining Csutak indeed had 1.800 men. Eventually he received reinforcements reaching to 2.600 men, but for no use as he didnt managed to gain any significant victory. After his own apreciations in Zarand hungarian army needed some more thousands men in order to keep romanians at bay.

Csutak started his expedition in Zarand from Oradea after he supervised a wounded convoy after the battle of Simeria in early february 1849. His battle orders pointed that he had to "pacify" the romanians in Zarand by military force and he was asigned to a political comisar. Csutak raised a batalion from all walks of life from hungarian ranks from Oradea, a good part of his men being convict from Oradea's dungeons.

He ocupied Hălmagiu first, but found it emptied by romanians who were hiding in the forests and mountains. From Hălmagiu he went against austrian army near Lipova if I rem well (citing from memory). He returned Hălmagiu only to be permanently harassed by romanians. In his memories he says that it was very dangerous for his honveds to walk in and around Hălmagiu especially if they walked alone, many of them getting killed by romanian guerilla. Even smaller groups of honveds were at risk of being atacked. He said that 4 hussars entered a romanian house in Hălmagiu to rest from fatigue. The romanian owner of the house let them get in and go to sleep and then he burned his own house in order to kill the hussars. They managed to escape at last minute, but Csutak exclaimed: "Aici până şi frunzele sunt duşmanii ungurilor".

The he went to Baia de Criş and then to Brad, but with little results as he was under permanent harrasing by romanians. Eventually he was recalled by his bosses under repeated acusations of theft.

The sources I readed didnt gave the size of romanian forces oposing Csutak. He himself writes only about the austrian forces he faced. In the rest, it seems that he confronted only isolated but permanent atacks from small units, maybe platoon sized from Buteanu's legion, but this is only my suposition, or atacks from organised villagers. A little biger fight he describes north of Brad in mid April 1849 I wouldnt believe took place actually as he link it with a meeting with Avram Iancu, wich I supose never took place and was only his invention to make his bosses feel sorry that revoked him (few days later occured Hatvani's defeat at Abrud. Hatvani was Csutak's replacement in the area and Csutak perhaps wanted to say that if he wasnt revoked, he was on the point of determining Iancu to put down the weapons peacefully, which I personally I dont believe that was the case or posible)

Posted by: ANDREAS February 02, 2012 08:57 pm
Thanks for the interesting details, 21 inf!
If I understand well, the charges (which I found by Czetz f.i.) related to the poor military capacity of Csutak, must be related to a change of tactics of Buteanu's troops! Because I related this information with those, previously mentioned, about the defeats of Buteanu's forces in the battles from Tarnava and Brad (november 1848) or the defeats from january 1849 when Halmagiu, Baia de Cris and Brad were again occupied by hungarian forces led by major Beke József. The Romanian troops learned from the defeats and adopted a different tactic, avoiding open confrontation, where their opponent can capitalize superiority in weapons, training and sometimes even in troop numbers. It's only my assumption!
Czetz memoirs again:
It seems, however, that major Csutak rested a long time on his laurels in Baia de Cris and Boita, for we find him without intermediate acts only on 20 April in Brad again, where he issued a proclamation to the Vlachs, in which he exhort them for rest and peace, but also threatens, with the sword of vengeance, all who refused to submit to the decisions of the government.
We want not to bore the reader with this not very meaningful document (Csutak written report on the fighting actions) and refer simply to the number 90 of the Közlöny von Debrecen on 27 April 1849.
The government was finally noticed, despite the many reports received, of the tardiness of Major Csutak, in addition that this good lord liked better in the pillage of the poor inhabitants from Baia de Cris, Boita and Brad, and to collect treasures for himself, as to act as a military commander in the open field. He was therefore recalled, and brought before a court martial. Put at his command was a certain Major Hatvani, a very unfortunate choice.
My question is: how many of these accusations are true, and attributed to him, and how many are, in fact, skilled command actions conducted by moti military leadership? I speak here only about the low military effectiveness of the hungarian military forces led by Csutak.

Posted by: 21 inf February 03, 2012 05:00 am
Well, I can only emit some supositions linked to what I readed: first of all, Csutak was a civilian, a lawyer, even if he served for a while in the army in his early life. His troops were assembled from a good part of rookies with no military experience at all and from convicts. Csutak himself is complaining in his memories that he had to put a lot of effort to keep his men together and to try to impose a sort of basic discipline, at least for the sake of the military denomination of his unit. His men were or young nobles who were disobeying orders, or civilians looking for personal profit from the expedition. Many of his noblemen had so many baggages carried on the field that Csutak had to strongly forbid any and many personal wagons which followed his batalion. Secondly, he personally was interested in personal profits, robbing not only romanians, but his fellow hungarians too. I doubt that Csutak's hungarian superiors were taking into account romanian petitions against him (if existed any, I doubt that romanians were complaining to hungarian top oficers or government as they didnt recognised them) thinking that hungarian rulers sent Csutak against romanians! More probably his fellow countrymen hungarians from Zarand complained against Csutak or who knows, maybe some of his men or officers (as in the case of Hatvani). That's I believe are the roots of Csutak's lack of military skills.

On the romanian side, we have to think that in november 1848 when major Gal entered Zarand, romanians from Apuseni Mountains were just starting to assemble and train for battle. The most and main romanian training camps (loagăre) were build in middle October 1848. In Zarand, mostly in it's eastern part, I believe the camps were not even assembled when Gal entered the area, so romanians could opose with real success. The romanian forces Gal faced I think were hastily rased under arms and couldnt have real chances of success. At the time Csutak went to Zarand, romanian forced had (at least a part of them) some training and even battle experience. At least some of Buteanu forces, maybe reinforcement sent by Iancu, were already battle hardened in this military actions: the march toward Turda in november 1848 - all Auraria Gemina Legion participated; the fighting at Ciucea - a total of 3.000 moţi participated to this battle; the survivors from battles with Gal; the battles against hungarian army marching from Cluj to Blaj and Alba Iulia; the battle of Simeria; battles in other parts of Transylvania, as far as Reghin as was the case of Vasile Macarie Moldovan prefect, who foght at Reghin and then seek refuge at Câmpeni. Let's not forget that between Gal's expedition and Csutak's expedition was an interval of 3 months and there were continous fightings as between this 2 oficers there were others going in the same area toward Deva, so fightings never ceased, allowing romanians to gain battle experience.

Posted by: 21 inf February 03, 2012 05:17 pm
In January 1849 Buteanu assesed his forces to be so able for fight that he wanted to block hungarian army's way from Deva to Arad. In a letter sent from Buceş to Avram Iancu in 27 January 1849 he wrote:

Frate Iancule!
Astăzi către Deva toată ziua sună tunurile. Oficiantul (officiolante) soldaţilor Klokutian din Zlatna mi-a scris cum că dânşii nu pot veni în Zarand pe Grohaş, de aceia mi-au făcut cunoscut că dânşii vor veni cu toţi oamenii să le stăm în cale la Brad, sau mai înainte.
Pentru aceia, în numele naţiunei române şi a imperatorului, vă provoc că numai decât să plece tot lagărul încoace, că împreunându-se cu noi să le stăm în cale ca să nu poată fugi în Ungaria. Eu scol toate satele de pe aicea.
Guarda (guardia) din Abrud să vină toată sau le ia puştile şi le dă la alţii mai harnici. Miliţia încă ne urmăreşte.
Buceş, 27 Ianuarie 1849

Posted by: ANDREAS February 03, 2012 10:03 pm
It's really interesting when Buteanu decide to mobilize his forces, which is simultaneously to the first battle (lost by General Bem) from Sibiu. Buteanu probably understood the importance of the route Halmagiu -Brad -Deva for the operations, but probably failed to achieve much of what he proposed, as the city of Brad was occupied by Major Beke forces in January 23 and held by them until February 17, when they voluntarily abandoned the city in their move to Deva. Major Beke's forces were (reconstructed from Czetz memories) in early February 1849 composed from the 1st Battalion/1st Szekler Border Guard Regiment no.14 (900 men), two companies of recruits of Bihar's 55th Honved Battalion (600 men) and one riding National Guard battalion from Bihar county (400 men). These forces had to join those of Baron Kemeny Farkas near Deva, and from there march to Orastie, where they took part at the battles with the austrian troops. This battle group (major Beke's) was only a part of the expected help Bem asked from the Hungarian Government, as I read that another group arriving from Arad (it's mentioned the 72."Mariassy" Honved Battalion, a Torontal National Guard Battalion, a company mobilized from Arad and probably other forces) from the Mures valley, was the main force that helped Bem's forces in the well known Simeria battle. This battle was very important in the course of the war, and an eventual lock (retaining) of the Hungarian forces from Brad (mr. Beke forces) would have helped (or maybe not?) the outcome of the battle. What prevented Buteanu to put into practice the mobilization of its forces and the retention of the enemy forces in the Brad area in early February 1849? I am aware that romanian landsturm forces were involved in the battles near Deva, but I guess it would had been more important to retain the hungarians in the Brad area...

Posted by: 21 inf February 04, 2012 04:54 am
Maybe the constant presure hungarian troops put on Buteanu's men didnt allowed him to mobilise his forces. I dont have a clear answer in this matter.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 04, 2012 09:40 am
A question indirectly related to Buteanu-led troops and the fightings in Brad area in January-February 1849: do you have or see documents or have information related to a military cooperation between Buteanu's Legion and Austrian troops during January-February 1849? Did he received orders or helped in battle the Austrian army back then? Or the orders were received via Avram Iancu?

Posted by: 21 inf February 04, 2012 12:31 pm
Butean had conections with austrian army but I have to check if it was in January-February 1849. At a certain time he was suporting a strong austrian force in Zarand but when this force hastilly retreated he remained alone and had to withdraw, also. The austrian officer comanding this force was lt. (if I rem well) Cernovich.

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2012 09:50 am
The text bellow is the first oficial proclamation of romanian revolution from Transylvania (if it is properly called revolution and was not in fact a combination between national revolution/social revolution/national fight). The proclamation is gave by Simion Bărnuţiu.

I marked with bold 2 passages that made the object of previous discussion on this topic, some older, some new.

The first bold (for a late subject) is a call for peace. I bolded because it was opened (and very fast closed - thank you, guys!) the subject of atrocities. I dont want to open it, I just want to point that until 13 October 1848 there were no atrocities from the part of romanians.

The second bold comes from the older discussion that romanians claimed a proper political representation in Diet, acording to their number. Bellow is the statement. An important thing is that romanians asked not only to be represented acordingly to their number in Transylvania, but also they asked that their representatives to be choosed by them! (in Diet a number of representatives were named by the austrian emperor, others were choosed by the nobility)

(I choosed to post the text in original in romanian to be fully understood how it was written in 1848 and not to loose something when translated into english. If one want to translate it, please feel free to do it)

Preveghieri despre unie
Ungurii cheamă pe ardeleni la unire cu Ţara Ungurească. Clujul s-a declarat cu mare solenitate cum că vrea a să uni. Aşa vor face şi secuii, poate numai saşii nu. Dar românii ce să facă? De la dezlegarea întrebării acestia atârnă viaţa şi moartea românilor. Aci se cade dară să-şi deschidă ochii toţi românii, că acuma au venit timpul cu care de se vor folosi bine, le vor dobândi toate, iară dimpotrivă le vor peirde toate şi câte le-au mai rămas, adecă vor pierde naţionalitatea, şi cu ea toate.
Ascultaţi dară, strănepoţii romanilor, aceea ce se cade să cugete şi grăiască astăzi tot românul, fie popă, nemeş, ostaş, cetăţean sau sătean, aşa ascultaţi aceea ce să cade astăzi să răspundă românii ungurilor, secuilor şi saşilor.
Noi, românii, până atunci nu vrem a vorbi la unirea aceasta cu voi, ungurii, până nu să va pune naţia românească iară la vrednicia acei politicească, de care o aţi dezbrăcat voi ungurii, cu secuii şi saşii. Voi aţi făcut asupra naţii noastre legi cum v-au plăcut vouă, aţi pus în Aprobatele voastre cum că românii (naţia cea mai veche a Ardealului) îi numai suferită, i-aţi scos până-n ziua de astăzi de la toate dregătoriile cele mai nalte, toate cele grase le-aţi ţinut vouă. De au ajuns vreun român la vreo dregătorie, voi pe acela l-aţi făcut să-şi lase legea, să să lepede de maica sa care l-au născut şi l-au aplecat, şi de naţia sa care l-au ţinut la şcoală cu sudoarea ei, pe sama voastră.
Destul, mai încolo nu vrem a vă număra păcatele, ca să nu tulburăm cu pomenirea lor sărbătoarea aceasta minunată a popoarălor, care au făcut H[ristos] să ne bucurăm într-însa. Astăzi răsună cuvântul cel dulce a libertăţii în toate cetăţile, şi mâine va răsuna şi în toate satele. Astăzi este ziua învierii popoarelor celor moarte.
Românilor, ascultaţi! Voi pân-acum aţi fost morţi politiceşte, legile ţării nu cunosc pe alte naţii vii politiceşte, fără numai dară pe unguri, secui şi saşi. Voi dară, un milion şi trei sute de mii români, nu sunteţi pe lume ca naţie. Încă odată, fraţilor: astăzi este ziua învierii dreptului nostru. Vrem dară să răsturnăm piatra de pe mormânt, să dezlegăm legăturile naţiii noastre cele de 10 sute de ani, ca să iasă din groapă şi să trăiască în veci.
Preoţilor! De sunteţi voi adevăraţi părinţi, cum vă numesc oamenii noştri, nu vă despărţiţi de trupul naţiii, nu vă despărţiţi interesul de al poporului românesc. Vă rugăm, pentru Dumnezeu, să nu vă mai uniţi cu nimenea, până nu veţi vedea fericit poporul românesc, cu care sunteţi de o credinţă. Fiţi dară cu o credinţă cătră olaltă. Voi numai atunci puteţi fi fericiţi, când vor fi fericiţi fiii voştri cei sufleteşti. Apăraţi-vă limba cea dulce şi numele cel strălucit de roman. Spuneţi-le dară ungurilor: „Noi nu mai voim a şti nici despre o unire, până nu să va publica în dietă şi în ţară cum că naţia românească se cunoaşte ca naţie românească!”.
Români nobili, răspândiţi ca stelele cerului pe pământul Făgăraşului, Chioarului, Sălajului şi toată Ţara Ardealului, voi strănepoţii acelora care, cu arme oştindu-să pentru patrie, v-au câştigat nobilitatea, deşteptaţi-vă din somnul cel greu, nu vă lăsaţi să vă mai amăgească cu minciuni, să vă şie numai ca pe nişte lipituri a ungurilor, despărţiţi de maica voastră naţie română! Pentru ce să fie ungurească nobilitatea voastră, care vi-o au câştigat vitejii voştri strămoşi cu braţe române, oştindu-să pentru patrie?! Fiţi dară credincioşi cătră împărat şi cătră patrie, fără fiţi credincioşi şi cătră sângele vostru. Spuneţi-le ungurilor: „Noi toţi gloria noastră într-aceea o punem, că suntem strănepoţi romanilor, credincioşi împăratului nostru şi patriii, dar de uniunea aceasta cu care ne îmbiaţi şi la care ne chemaţi, nu voim a şti nimica până când nu să va da congres naţional, în care să ne putem aşterne şi noi dorinţele naţionale, nu să tot judecaţi voi numai de nobis sine nobis, adică de noi fără de noi, şi până nu să va publica în Dieta Ardealului, nu în Pesta, cum că naţia noastră nu e primită ca naţie românească, nu cum aţi tot făcut pân-acum, de aţi tot umblat cu şovăituri şi cu tâlcuituri întorturate, articoli asupritori. Voi aţi ştiu bine împărţi pentru voi, că aţi împărţit naţia ungurească în două părţi, unguri şi secui, ca să ziceţi că sistema stă în trei naţii, şi pe români să-i scoateţi afară. Acum încă v-aţi împărţit binişor limba şi naţionalitatea voastră, şi de a noastră limbă şi naţionalitate nu vă pasă. Asta nu mai poate rămâne aşa. Naţia română nu mai poate fi roabă ungurilor, secuilor şi saşilor, limba noastră trebuie să aibă cinste cuviincioasă înaintea statului şi a legilor, care le-am apărat şi le vom apăra cu sângele nostru. Naţionalitatea noastră trebue să să recunoască şi să să asigureze”.
Ostaşilor, strănepoţi ai romanilor cu numele şi cu fapta! Regimente române! Eroi lăudaţi de Napoleon! Recunoscută virtutea voastră numai atunci va străluci în gloria sa, când vor [!] fi fiii unei naţii politice vieţuitoare, nu moarte. Uniţi-vă dară cu fraţii voştri preoţii şi cu nobilii, şi cu generozitate şi fără sfială spuneţi-le ungurilor: „Noi nu putem fi odihniţi până nu se va declara în public, prin lege, cum că naţia românească e cunoscută ca naţie românească, numai atunci dacă va fi în dietă adunată cum se cade toată naţia românească. Până atunci protestăm împotriva oricărei uniri care ar îndrăzni să facă cineva cu numele naţiii”.
Români cetăţeni şi săteni! Să nu faceţi pagube nimărui, să nu vă atingeţi de persoana nimărui, că oamenii cei ce fac aceasta nu sunt vrednici de libertate. Ascultaţi sfatul fraţilor voştri, staţi totdeauna credincioşi împăratului şi patriii, dar pe lângă aceasta cereţi vârtos ca să să şteargă iobăgia, că de vreo 10 sute de ani lucrând în cinste brazda domnilor, aţi plătit de o sută de ori pământelele acele, care vă dau hrana de astăzi până mâine.
Auziţi, iubiţi fraţi, asta e politica aceea care vă poate mântui pe voi şi numele vostru. Vă rugăm pe voi şi numele vostru. Vă rugăm pentru Dumnezeu, pentru fericirea şi cinstea voastră, să nu ascultaţi de altă politică. Ungurii, secuii şi saşii vor zice: „Unguriţi-vă mai întâi cu noi, apoi v-om da asta şi asta”. Mai adăunăzi zicea ungurii: „Învăţaţi-ne limba, apoi v-om da dregătorii”. Auziţi aici fraţilor, la idei sucite! Cine i-au împuterit pe ei ca să lege drepturile omeneşti de limbă şi de unia lor? Nu le credeţi, vor a vă înşela. Răspundeţi-le: „Proclamaţi întâi pe naţia românească, lăsaţi-o prin Dieta Ardealului, prin reprezentanţi aleşi de români după numărul neamului nostru, lăsaţi pe români la adunarea comitaturilor, districtelor, scaunelor, şi atunci vom vorbi şi noi ca naţie, cu voi ca naţie.
Încă odată, fraţilor! Fără de naţionalitate pentru noi şi republica e numai un despotism afurisit. Ştergerea iobăgiii şi naţie românească şi congres naţional, în care să ne înţelegem mai nainte despre dobândirea acestora, nici mai mult, nici mai puţin. Acestea mai întâi, celelalte toate să vor adăoga. Fără de aceste şi raiul încă e iad.
Afurisit să fie în veci oricare român va îndrăzni a face vreo unire, până nu va fi proclamată naţia românească. Poporul românesc de aceea nu vrea să ştie, numai dacă să va primi naţia şi să va şterge iobăgia. Atunci von fi odihniţi şi fraţi cu toţii.
Să trăiască naţia românească, să trăiască împăratul!

Posted by: Dénes February 05, 2012 12:54 pm
Here is an excerpt on an episode of the 1848 clashes between Rumanian and Hungarian forces, scanned from the book I've mentioned (1848-1849. Pictorial History of the Revolution and Freedom Fight. Collective of ten historians, TKK Publishing, Debrencen, Hungary). This one refers to the battle of Zlatna and the surrounding events:

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

I have no time to translate it, but perhaps others can do an excerpt of the important information.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2012 01:02 pm
Thanks, Denes! I will read it!

Ok, I read it! biggrin.gif The source you posted presents in general terms the same situation romanian sources are presenting. I hope my further lines are not too much or too detailed

There are a few diferences, although, the romanian sources are saying that:
-at the date of the clash in Zlatna were also hungarian national guards that didnt belong to Zlatna, they were from other hungarian villages;
-Avram Iancu was not aware what prefect Petru Dobra was doing; a general impresion even in romanian mentality is that Avram Iancu was "the boss" of all romanian fighters and prefects - nothing could be more wrong than that (Iancu was just a prefect, maybe more proeminent due to his personality, but after all, he was just a prefect)! In October 1848 Comitetul de Pacificaţiune was comanding to ALL romanian prefects, including Avram Iancu (he himself could comand only his legion, Auraria Gemina!!!); most of romanian Landsturm action were comanded by Puchner
-the Legion of Zlatna, planned to be comanded by Petru Dobra, was never raised - his men which go to Zlatna in 23 October 1848 were armed peasants raised from villages but no registered legionaires (all legions had written down the names of their fighters, including age, village, marital status and weapons each had);
-after Zlatna disaster and mainly due to it, Legion of Zlatna's organisation ceased
-romanian sources point that Dobra and the romanians from around Zlatna acted without orders from Comitetul de Pacificaţiune or austrian military hierarchy. They heared about other hungarian villages were the hungarian national guards were disarmed and acted at their own decision to go to Zlatna and to take weapons from hungarians
-romanian sources say that Nemegyei was responsable for the clash, as he ordered fire upon romanian peasants who were waiting what the hungarian-romanian comision build ad-hoc in that day will decide about hungarian's weapons lay down

Just for one who is not very familiar with 1848/49 events (and/or eventually development of Zlatna clash), some info:
-it was not uncommon that a national guard from a city or village to have hungarians, romanians and germans if the settlement contained all this 3 nations. As things progress toward a civil war, the national guards separated on national criterias, all nations having it's own guard
-this kind of negociations for hungarian laying weapons were often autumn-winter 1848 and also often it went without bloodshed
-from October 1848 austrians take the decision they will keep Transylvania for them. So, the term of "rebelious" aplied to romanians by hungarians finds no more it's place (from the point of view of one who would consider legal the austrian law, of course. From hungarian point of view, their revolution was still raging and they considered the other side as rebelious, or insurgent). Romanians could be considered rebelious by hungarians only between aproximatelly June to October 1848, when austrian emperor Ferdinand aproved hungarian's will and gave hungarians "carte blanche". From October austrian power came back and declared hungarian revolution as illegal.
-Nemegyei was known between romanians having from June a deep anti-romanian atitude, as he was part of Kosma comision investigating romanians about posible revolt in the center of Apuseni Mountains
-Nemegyei was killed at Presaca; his wife was badly wounded (I dont have info if she survived); his son, about 8 years old, was wounded but managed to survive and was sheltered at Cluj by a hungarian noble man
-from the total of more than 600 hungarians killed by romanian peasants at Presaca about 200 were women and children; the rest were armed men
-the killings of Presaca started when some romanian peasant saw to a hungarian lady a big amount of cash and jewelry. The disaster occured due to romanian peasant's greed. It is hard to believe Dobra could control such a mob who was not organised as legion, so things went out of control.
-after Avram Iancu heared about the disaster, he sent his own men to save the surviving hungarians if there left any

In all, it was a tragic event, like others which will occur in the further period from both sides. I hope the discussion will not degenerate in a list of massacres and killings both sides did.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 05, 2012 08:08 pm
Denes, do I remember wrong or we set that the topics discussed here to be related to the political-military events and not related to the massacres and atrocities. The tragic events from Zlatna occurred in the context of Puchner's orders to disarm hungarian militias, as a consequence resulted from the mixture of armed militias actions (against romanian militia) and civil population solidary in the feelings with the first. This did't mean I justify the massacre, no way, I only try to explain the events who happen because of this context. On the other hand, I already quoted atrocities and crimes against Romanian civilians happened far away from combat zones, and lacking the slightest opposition to the Hungarian troops. But this is meaningless, we can learn nothing from this!
21 inf, thanks very much for posting the document in the language it was written! It is indeed more relevant this way. I read right now a book in German -"Der Winter Feldzug des Revolutionskriege in Siebenburgen in den Jahren 1848 und 1849 von ein Osterreichischen Veteranen", Leipzig 1861- and is a interesting problem that arises, the military action or the Romanian landsturm along with Imperial troops to disarm Hungarian militias (and Hungarian regulars) in October-November 1848 in Transylvania. I admit that one of the issues that interests me much is the survival of many Hungarian regular army units (Honved Battalions nr. 11 and 12, (Matthias) Hussar Regiment nr.15 a.o.) who could be found in december 1848 in Bem's Army when he invaded Transylvania. Probably these units were previously supplemented with volunteers or conscripts from Hungary but still the core was from Transylvania, at least if we believe Czetz...

Posted by: 21 inf February 05, 2012 08:41 pm
Andreas, the survival of this hungarian units might be in the way Csutak's batalion survived. When he arived at Oradea he wanted to have his batalion in the action again, but he had too few men. So, he raised a new batalion in only a matter of days (if I rem well in 3 days). The units you cited might have raised new ranks from local population from Transylvania, including romanians drafted by force.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 05, 2012 09:02 pm
No 21 inf, I mean Bem's army before the invasion of Transylvania, in early december 1848, with the units disposed in the Ciucea -Zalau -Jibou areas. But I don't disagree when you suppose that this units could be filled or even new raized from volunteers and even recruits from that regions or the neighborhood! I will post as soon as I finish reading what the Austrian sources mentions. For now, I can say with certainty, that all sources (Czetz and austrian) said that Cluj city was left by Hungarian troops without a fight when the imperials approached the city. Maybe this way some of the Hungarian regulars survived?

Posted by: ANDREAS February 05, 2012 09:13 pm
By the way, 21 inf, when you have time and patience to help me, please translate what is written here:
about the Transylvanian units : 11, 12, 134 -137 Honved Battalions, 15 Hussar Regiment! Only when you have time! I only understand military terms in Hungarian so... And honestly the google translator sucks ph34r.gif sorry for say it!

Posted by: Dénes February 05, 2012 09:41 pm
I posted that excerpt not to put emphasis on the massacres of Hungarian disarmed men and civilians, but because that was one of the few details of the Rumanian-Hungarian conflict detailed in the mentioned book. It's a good occasion to show the current Hungarian historians' view of this conflict.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf February 06, 2012 06:15 am
Andreas: ok.

Denes: what you posted is wellcome, is good to know what others have to say about those events. I am interested in hungarian hisotry book, in order to match them with other sources. Please keep posting. I didnt take it as an emphasis on massacre.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 10, 2012 01:17 am
As I said, I want to briefly present the military operations from october-december 1848 in Transylvania as described by an Austrian veteran. They appear in its description as a reaction of the Imperials to the szekler revolution (proclamation of joining the Hungarian Revolution) namely the military actions triggered by the 4 organized Szekler Brigades. The fights I want to describe are the ones that involves the Romanian legions who were in control, in early November 1848, of the entire left bank of the Mures river, from Ciugud (face to Alba Iulia) to Ciumbrud (face to Aiud), and the light cavalry detachment (from the 15."Mátyás" Hussar Regiment) led by gróf Bethlen Gergely and an infantry detachment (from the 11th Honved Battalion) led by báró Bánffy János who defended the right bank of the river. The camp where the romanian forces were stationed was at Noșlac, camp which was under fire from the other bank of the river. But because the Hungarian forces in the area were weak facing many thousands of armed Romanians, the latter began to cross the river by a ford. But before one third of the Romanian forces crossed the river, gróf Bethlen Gergely with his hussar squadron attack them vigorously. Over 800 of the romanian were killed or wounded, other 700 were scattered, so the city of Aiud was saved from the same fate as Zlatna (his mention). The danger was still present as the Romanian forces in the area remained with about 4000 fighters. But following the defeat of Targu Mures battle, the Hungarian forces from the area had been withdrawn and joined báró Baldacci Manó (Hungarian) brigade (3.500 men with 6 cannons) who who trying to stop the advance of Urban forces towards Cluj. So stopping the Romanians to cross the Mures river was temporary, and only delayed the outcome. The battle from Gherla was won by Urban troops and the retreat to Cluj of the Hungarian forces generalized. After the battle from Someseni where Baldacci brigade (reinforced by the new raised 27th Honved Battalion, arrived from Bihor) was trying to stop Urban, and was defeated again, the hungarian forces withdrew from Cluj, at Gilau. Later the retreated forces from Cluj area were reunited in Ciucea under Czetz command.
What's interesting in all this presentation is that although the one who tells the story of these battles is a veteran Austrian soldier, the Romanian landsturm are portrayed negatively, once mentioning the Zlatna massacre, then the defeat at Noșlac. On the other hand he describes extremely laudatory the Romanian border guard troops of Urban, their discipline and especially their combat effectiveness.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 11, 2012 07:26 pm
Another source that mentions this fight (from Noșlac, 25 october 1848), without giving too many details, is "Erdély Törénete 1848-49-ben" by Kövári László, Pest, 1861, which states that in the area (who was very important because of the strategic road Vintu de Sus-Turda-Cluj) defended by 380 honved infantry and 140 hussar cavalry (from which 110 men from the 15."Mátyás" Hussar Regiment and 30 men from the 11. Székely Hussar Regiment), was thwarted an attempt of the Romanian militia to push towards Turda and Cluj. So this battle did happen, but the question is if the proportions of the Romanian militia defeat were so great as written by the Austrian veteran (the book is "Der Winter-Feldzug des Revolutionskrieges in Siebenburgen in den Jahren 1848 und 1849 von einem osterreichischen Veteranen", Leipzig, 1861 -in english "The Winter Campaign of the revolutionary war in Transylvania in the years 1848 and 1849 of one austrian Veteran").
21 inf. or Denes, do you have any other sources who could confirm the extent of defeat of the Romanian militia (800 people killed and injured in a single fight is a high figure) and also who lead this romanian force (if it was a legion or not!)?

Posted by: Dénes February 11, 2012 08:08 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 12, 2012 01:26 am)
21 inf. or Denes, do you have any other sources who could confirm the extent of defeat of the Romanian militia (800 people killed and injured in a single fight is a high figure) and also who lead this romanian force (if it was a legion or not!)?

I am not an expert by any means regarding the 1848-1849 events (I just bought my very first book dedicated to the topic). But if you give me the precise date, I'll try to look it up.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS February 11, 2012 10:47 pm
Yes Denes,
It is written that the fighting took place in Noșlac (in the book Nagylak, wiki call it Marosnagylak), at 25 october 1848 (no ideea if new or old style date!) with the participation of gróf Bethlen Gergely led hussar detachment (110 men) and a much bigger romanian militia group -probably up to 1.000-1.500 men (no leader mentioned). It would be interesting if you can find more details about this fight! Appreciate your help!

Posted by: 21 inf February 12, 2012 08:11 am
Andreas, I dont have info about this fight. It is not imposible that the numbers of fighters are ok, I doubt about the number of losses (in both romanian and hungarian sources, as some of them are both exagerated). There were some cases when hundreds of hungarian troopers put on the run more than a thosand romanians as the late were armed only with non-firing weapons and they could not stand the fire of hungarian rifles and canons.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 12, 2012 04:45 pm
21 inf, this is my surprise too! Because in his memoirs, Ciurileanu mentiones that a austrian detachment (2 romanian border companies) led by captain Gratze together with "Auraria Gemina" Legion led by Avram Iancu marched from Teius to Aiud, without meeting any resistance, than marched towards Vintu de Sus advancing on Turda. The military forces meet again no resistance. He indeed say that in Vintu de Sus they found about 100 killed Romanians, who had been before detained in prison. So they burn down the city, as revenge. I wonder if these romanians have something to do with the claimed battle from Noșlac as I assume that the battle happend earlier. Otherwise the Hungarian forces were expected to oppose to the austrian-romanian advance to Vintu de Sus and Turda. My interim conclusion is that a fight is happened, but the losses were not so great on the romanian side.

Posted by: 21 inf February 12, 2012 08:34 pm
Ciurileanu memories were wrote some long time after the revolution and he mixed the dates, numbers and facts. Without calling him a liar, it is common that as the time passes, the memory of events fade if it is not written imediately after they happened. Ciurileanu mixed some events and dates (they can be compared with the reports of Avram Iancu, Axente Sever and Simion Balint). About figures, he greatly exagerate numbers for both romanian and hungarian effectives and losses. Ciurileanu is in my opinion not quite a very reliable source of information.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 12, 2012 11:23 pm
Thank you for saying it, 21 inf!
I indeed found as footnotes to his memoirs explanations over many inaccuracies found in his writings, but I assumed that they refer only to the number of troops involved in fightings! It's good to know!
A different battle is described in the book (Der Winter-Feldzug...) in about the same period (25 october 1848) between a Seckler detachment (that split from the brigade who advanced to Blaj, coming from Târgu-Mureş) with the probable intent of attacking the city of Mediaş. The Seckler detachment was about 800 men strong while the austrians had 600 regular infantry (3 companies) and 400 german militia troops from Mediaş. The battle which was held in Șaroșul Unguresc (Deleni) was a clear victory for the imperials, who claim that they killed 100 ennemy fighters and captured other 60, with the rest of the enemy column retreating in panic! They captured one flag, two drums and many rifles abandoned by the ennemy, having only 6 men injured. The austrian commander was not very satisfied, since the enveloping maneuver was not succesful enough (brought him not so many prisoners as he wanted) as it's written. But he was satisfied of the capture of a lot of enemy propaganda materials (including a declaration addressed to Mediaş citizens by Baron Banffi Janos, a nice decorated hungarian flag which was to be placed in the occupied city, many publications, a.o.), and many animals and money looted from Romanian and German inhabitants of villages burned by the "ennemy hordes".

Posted by: ANDREAS February 12, 2012 11:58 pm
I have to say that I described the battle of Șaroșul Unguresc (Deleni) just to make a comparison with the claimed battle from Noșlac, particularly in the number of dead and wounded in one battle! Obviously the battle of Șaroșul Unguresc (Deleni) has nothing to do with Romanians, so it was necessary to bring these explanations!

Posted by: Dénes February 13, 2012 06:11 am
The mentioned book describes very short the battle of Magyarsaros, where the Austrian troops under command of Major Kleiser destryed the Hungarian column led by Denes Kalnoky, also with the help of Saxon and Rumanian rebels.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dénes February 13, 2012 06:31 am
Other military events that happened on the same day.

Troops led by Cpt. Janos Banffy and Cpt. Jozsef Baumgarten attacked the Rumanian rebels camping between Csombord and Szentkiraly and dispersed them.

Rumanian rebels led by Iosif Moga disarm the Hungarian and German militias of Offenbanya.

Finally, although I don't know if it's military related, 19 members of the Brady family were killed by Buteanu's men at Vaca (Tehenfalva) while they were returning from Korosbanya.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf February 13, 2012 07:16 am
In 25 october 1848 were the following clashes:
-at Sâncrai, between romanian Landsturm and hungarian troops
-at Saroş between austrians and szeklers
-at Ciumbrud, Axente Sever being defeated by hungarian troops
-at Măgina, were romanian camp was routed by hungarian national guards from Aiud, led by István Kemény baron

(source: my book, based on atached bibliography)

Cpt. Baumgarten was an austrian defector oficer. On 28 october the same captain, along with count Gábriel Bethlen and baron János Bánffi atacked romanian Landsturm at Cricău. They led a szekler company, 250 infantry men and 110 hussars against romanians led by viceprefect Bălaş, Bucur tribun (priest from Galda) and lt. Şăndruc from I Romanian Grenzer Regiment. Romanians were probably part of Legion Prima Blasiana of prefect Axente Sever. The hungarian force was defeated, sustaining some loses in manpower and retreated toward Teiuş without being chased by romanians due to heavy fog.

Brady familly was entirelly wiped out because it was acused of previously killing a number of romanians, including childrens. This event was not related to a specific military action, at least for my knowledge. It seems that Brady familly atempted to seek refuge during civil unrest in Zarand (as many other hungarian families did, especially from nobility) and was hunted down by romanians who intercepted it's wagon. At origins Brady familly was of romanian ancestry. During the same period Brady familly was killed a good number of hungarian noble families were captured on road (as they tried to evacuate themselves from Zarand) by romanians and kept in captivity in Hălmagiu, Baia de Criş and Brad, without being killed. They were liberated by following hungarian expeditions started from Arad.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 13, 2012 06:31 pm
Denes, I readed again the book passage I quoted, where is mentioned the participation in the fights of 400 men from german militia from Mediaş city (no mention of romanians)! Maybe there were romanians too in this militia but most of them (if not all) were surely the Saxons!
21 inf, you enlightened me about the battle of Noșlac (in the book Nagylak) as I am sure now that part of Axente Sever Legion was part of this battle! I guess that is no accident that the same day two battles takes place simultaneously not so far one from another: Ciumbrud, near Aiud city and Noslac not far from Vințu de Sus (Felvinc)! I am pretty sure that the two attempts to cross the river Mures by romanian legionnaires were part of the same plan (was not necessarily conceived by Axente Sever) to occupy the two major cities (Aiud and Vințu de Sus)! My only confusion remains in the few Hungarian forces present in the area, which had the mission to protect the river over a length of aprox. 20 km. How to do this with only 380 honveds (infantry) and 140 hussars (cavalry) -unless militias from Aiud and Vințu de Sus (if any?) are omitted? The number of hungarian soldiers in the Aiud-Vințu de Sus area is mentioned in the book "Erdély Törénete 1848-49-ben" by Kövári László, Pest, 1861. The book says nothing of any hungarian militia in the area! So, my question is: what do you know about the Ciumbrud battle especially in terms of combat forces -how many romanians, how many hungarians...? Or other details that could help us have a image of this battle!

Posted by: ANDREAS February 13, 2012 07:37 pm
I found some details about the battle of Ciumbrud in the memoirs of Axente Sever quoted here: but no mention about the battle of Noslac... On the other hand from this text:
"On May 13, 1848 the revolutionary spirit and solidarity of the people - Romanian and Hungarian - was expressed strongly, jumping them young and old to defend a young Hungarian the authorities arrested. Animated by the revolutionary impetus, the people from Peţelca will be enrolled as fighters in the Legion I "Blajeana", organized by the prefect Axente Sever. In this role they will be involved in bloody clashes in October 1848, from Noşlaca, Sâncrai and Ciumbrud." (source:,_Alba)
I understand that a battle took place in Noslac too, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned!

Posted by: ANDREAS February 14, 2012 12:00 am
Sekler troops leave the camp from Cluj on 22 october 1848, having 380 "honved" soldiers, 110 „Mátyás“ and 30 Sekler Hussars, and when hearding that from the southern side of the Maros river the Hungarians will be attacked, rushed there.
On 23 Oct. in Nagylak, on 25 Oct. in Csombord they encountered the agressors and engaged them, forcing them to leave their camps, and thru this bringing Aiud town out of danger. -translated from the book "Erdély Törénete 1848-49-ben" by Kövári László, Pest, 1861.

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2012 04:39 pm

Some time ago, one fellow forumist asked about Totenkopf Legion. On the image above is the uniform of this legion. This was the german legion, part of it fought in 1849 at Abrud and was forced by motzes to retreat in the battles occured in this town in May 1849.

The image is black/white, but the description of the uniform says that: the dead head was from white metal; the feathers were black, ostrich plumes. The coat was dark blue, with white buttons; the collar, the epauletes and the sewing of the coat were red. A source indicates that the dead head was also present on the collar, while other sources indicates that instead of dead head on the collar, a big five-corner star made from blue fabric was on either left and right side of the collar (as in the image above).

Image source is from "1848-49 Szabadsagharc katonainak egyenruhai", Honved Leveltar es Muzeum, Budapest, 1950

Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2012 06:34 pm
21inf very interesting picture!
I say this because German Legion wearing their own uniforms is something special, this uniform does not seem at all similar to the Hungarian Honved, at least from what I saw! On the other hand the hat evokes an unpleasant feeling to me because it's similar to that worn later by Hungarian gendarmerie (magyar kiráyli csendőrség) not very popular in the eyes of Romanians from Transylvania. Do you know if this kind of hats were common in the era (1848-49)?

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2012 06:42 pm
I am not a specialist in uniforms or civilian clothing, so I cant tell you an answer, Andreas.

The same kind of hat had the hungarian chasseurs in 1848 and maybe the vienese legion from hungarian army. And yes, indeed, the hat looks like the one hungarian gendarmes use to have, and yes, it is a fact they were much hatred (but I doubt that only romanians had this feelings toward this gendarmes, there were others, too).

Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2012 07:00 pm
indeed the hats were used by the Hungarian army too:

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2012 07:01 pm
Here is a hungarian chasseur

Here is a vienese legionaire

And here 2 honved uniforms (but there were also other hungarian uniforms in 1848 - of line infantry, artilery, pioneers, national guards, free units aka szabadcsapatok, cavalry and foreign legions - polish, italian and a projected but never raised romanian legion)

source: the same book as mentioned above.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2012 07:10 pm
Indeed very interesting pictures, thanks for posting them! I notice that some of the uniforms were inspired by the imperial army (more or less) others already were quite different, anyway the colors used show that they adapted the uniforms to the battlefield, more suitable than the white Austrian line infantry uniforms!

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2012 07:12 pm
Not all of them adopted a suited colour for battlefield. I come back later these days with details.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2012 07:18 pm
I also remark that a cap began to be used (last image), similar to that used by the Romanian line infantry in 1877-78! I assume that for economic reasons, the hat inherited from the imperial army (the big one) was abandoned (as he consume more material) as it was not more useful in the fight as the cap (the little one)!

Posted by: 21 inf March 06, 2012 07:27 pm
I dont know why was the reason of having smaller csakos (kepis, military hats), but hungarian army and national guards had also other types of hat (camp bonets / bonet de cazarm in romanian, a soft bonet, similar somehow to later soviet pilotka, just to make an image, I'll post one later) or adopted civilian hats, mainly the national guards, due to military clothing shortages.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 06, 2012 07:30 pm
Many Hungarian army (Honved and Huszar troops) uniforms used in 1848-49 war can be seen here:

Posted by: 21 inf March 07, 2012 01:32 pm
These units from austrian army remained faithfull to House of Austria in summer of 1848:

- Nr. 31 Leiningen Infantry Regiment from Sibiu
-Nr. 51 Carl Ferdinand Infantry Regiment from Cluj (only a few soldiers deserted to hungarians)
-Nr. 53 Leopold Infantry Regiment from Eszek, Hungary
-3rd Batalion from 61 Rukavina Infantry Regiment from Timişoara
-two squadrons from 11th Szekler Hussar Regiment (raised mainly from romanian ranks)
-all Grenzer Regiment, excepting the Szekler ones.

These units from austrian army joined hungarian revolution:
-Nr. 2 Alexander IR
-3rd Batalion from Nr. 19 Schwartzenberg IR from Gyor
-3rd Batalion from Nr. 32 d'Este IR, Pesta
-3rd Batalion from 33 Gyulai IR, Komarom
-Nr. 34 Prinz von Preussen IR from Kassa
-3rd Batalion from Nr. 37 Grossherzog Michael IR from Oradea
-Nr. 39 Dom Miguel IR IR from Debreţin
-3rd Batalion from Nr. 48 Ernest IR from Sopron
-3rd Batalion from Nr. 52 Franz Karl IR from Pecs
-Nr. 60 Wasa IR from Eperjes
-Nr. 62 Tursky IR from Târgu Mureş
-Nr. 14 Szekler Grenzer Regiment, nr. 1
-Nr. 15 Szekler Grenzer Regiment, nr. 2
-Nr. 1 Kaiser Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 2 Hannover Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 3 Ferdinand Hussar Regiment
-3rd Division from Nr. 4 Alexander Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 6 Wurttemberg Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 9 Nikolaus Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 10 Wilhelm Hussar Regiment
-Nr. 11 Szekler Hussar Regiment (minus 2 squadrons raised from romanian ranks)
-1st and 2nd Batalion from Nr. 16 Zanini IR (raised from italian ranks)
-200 men from Nr. 5 Bervaldo Artillery Regiment (czechs and germans)

Posted by: ANDREAS March 07, 2012 11:55 pm
I confirm the accuracy of the informations posted, I also found several books "Geschichte des K.K. 34 Linien-Infanterie-Regiment Prinz Regent von Preussen" Wien, 1860, "Geschichte des K.K. 39 Linien-Infanterie-Regiment Dom Miguel" Innsbruck, 1854, "Geschichte des K.K. 60 Linien-Infanterie-Regiment Gustav Prinz von Wasa" Wien, 1871, where are mentioned, during the period October 1848-August 1849, the subunits (battalions) part of these regiments as fighting on the side of the "Hungarian rebels".

Posted by: ANDREAS March 08, 2012 10:08 pm
21inf, in an image I found here:
is something who looks like a "coasa indreptata" used by romanian militia (and moti fighters) in 1848-49 battles. Did the hungarian militia use this too?

Posted by: 21 inf March 09, 2012 04:03 am
Yes, Andreas, is a "coasă îndreptată" and yes, hungarian "nemzetorseg" used it, as romanians did (and Poles did in 1830/1831 Uprising, and other nations did).

Posted by: ANDREAS March 10, 2012 11:15 am
This hat presented as specific Hungarian troops hunters (and Austrian as well) in 1848-49, in my opinion is different from that worn by German legion 'skull'! How do you find it, 21inf?
These reenactors uniforms of the Regiment no. 15 Szekler border guards, shows a cap that I have not seen any where in other images of the era. Romanians border guards suppose that wore it too. Do you know what it is, I have only seen pictures of border guards wearing the well known shako?

Posted by: 21 inf March 10, 2012 12:58 pm
The hungarian hunter hat was round toped (cu calota rotunda) and the same was for german legion. The hat you posted looks more like the hat of the wienese legion.

The head gear of szekler regiment reenacting is corect and it is what hungarian are calling "tabori sapka" or "bonet de cazarm" in romanian. The regimental number from the hat was contested by some romanian reenactors but is corectly reproduced by the guys in the image, acording to hungarian sources. What is strange is the epaulette they wear, which was not mentioned in austrian military reglementations; it's role was for not letting the leather belts for ammo pouch and bayonet to fell of from the shoulder of the soldier. Also, in some sources is mentioned the "vallperec" (in hungarian), which is the so called "colac" or "colac de umar" who had the role of not letting the rifle's belt to fell off from the shoulder. The reenactors in the pic dont have it. The colours of the uniform are also corect. They are reproducing the 15 Szekler Border Regiment nr 2 from 1848/49.

Posted by: 21 inf March 10, 2012 07:56 pm
New info about rockets used in 1848-49 in Transylvania:

The austrian army used the Augustin type rockets. The newly raised hungarian army (Honvedseg) didnt received this kind of weapons from austrians in summer 1848, so the National Comitee for Home Defense (Orszagos Honvedelmi Bizottmany) started research for developing an own rocket type. The researches were ended in december 1848 and the first orders were launched to Oradea ammo factory in January 1849, the first half battery of rockets being sent to transylvanian front in 14th February 1849.

The austrian rockets were ignited with "capsă", the hungarian ones with fuse. The hungarian rocket had a warhead (grenade, hollow round ball, incendiary or ilumination head), the rocket body and the stabiliser (2,8 long meter wooden stick). The weight of austrian rocket was 10,5 kg, the hungarian ones had 4 kg (7 pfund) allowing thus to be loaded by a single man. At Oradea were build 3,6 and 12 pfund hungarian rockets, heavier (siege) ones being imposible to be built due to low weight of the warhead. The results of test in december showed that the 3 pfund rocket launched at 35 degree flight for 2000-2200 paces, the 6 pfund launched at 20 degree flight at 700-800 paces and the hollow round ball warhead launched almost horizontally flight at 400 paces. The stabiliser was united with the rocket only before launching.

The crew was made from 7 men: 1st servant was in charge with aiming, 2nd with loading the rocket, 3rd with ignition. Number 4,5 and 6 were carrying ammo from the ammo cart under the orders of nr 2 servant. Nr 7 was selecting the warhead at the ammo cart, under the orders of nr 1. The rocket launch pads were deployed 6 paces one from other and the ammo cart was deployed 30 paces behind the launch pads.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 10, 2012 08:02 pm
21inf, I noticed too the existence of the so called "colac" or "colac de umar" you mention, in this image shown as well as in the picture you posted of the Totenkopf Legion soldier. Do you know if all infantry bands of the austrian&hungarian army used that in their standard uniforms?

Posted by: 21 inf March 10, 2012 08:14 pm
For my knowledge, it was not used by austrians in 1848/49 period and I didnt found it for hungarian honveds as a regulation. Maybe it was intented by hungarians to have it, but not all managed to sew it on their uniforms. In my sources the uniforms of szekler border regiments are described without "colac", but the drawings show it...

The Totenkopf Legion was not an austrian unit, but a german one, raised in Rhine region, who fight for hungarians. I am not familiar with german uniforms and I dont know if german legion was equiped by hungarians or not.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 11, 2012 10:26 am
An interesting history about the origin of the Skull and Bones symbol of the German Legion :
The origins trace back to the days of the Napoleonistic wars and the Deutsche Freiheitskriege. The Husaren of Prussia (Brunswick, then closely together) became the first weares of the symbol, who fought the French opression. The symbol of the Totenkopf was a sign of the German struggle, and their devotion to their cause, as well as hatred for the French. The 'Schwarze Herzog' Friedrich Wilhelm (1771-1815) founded the 'Schwarze Legion', initially in Austrian service, 1809, as most German states had already been overrun by the French. Following Austria's defeat, the Black Legion refused to surrender and fought it's way to the coast through Westfalen (Halle), with the Black Duke at the head of his men. They were evacuated by British ships at the Wesel, where they would go to Britain to rest and refit. In 1813-14 he would return to Germany, restore his state and continue the fight against the French. During the battle at Waterloo, it were the Totenkopfhusaren who countered the first mass cavalry charges of the French at around 15:00. Friedrich Wilhelm was shot in battle while leading his Korps at the battle of Quatre-bras.

The symbol was lated adopted by various cavalry regiments, and later by the Deutsche Panzerwaffe and the SS, who regarded themselves as the torch bearers of those same ideals as their ancestors fought for; independence and self-conscienceness. The symbol itself remained the same, a skull with crossed bones.

I guess the German Legion who fought on the side of Hungarians in 1848-49 had the origin of his name and symbol (Skull and Bones) in the history above.

Posted by: ANDREAS March 11, 2012 11:20 am
A nice picture of the foreign legions who who fought on the side of Hungarians in 1848-49 war can be seen here:

Posted by: 21 inf March 11, 2012 11:45 am
Andreas, thanks for the last image! It is very nice and well coloured! And it seems that the german legionaire in the image had at the collar 2 stars (some hungarian sources said there were a star on each side of the collar, others that it had skulls instead of stars).

Posted by: ANDREAS April 07, 2012 01:49 pm
In this post I was mentioning the punitive expedition from late october -early november 1848 led by Major Gal Laszlo, and because recently I read in the book "Procese politice antiromanesti care au zguduit Transilvania in toamna anului 1848" written by Ioan Chindris and Gelu Neamtu (Anti-Romanian political processes that shattered Transylvania in the autumn of 1848) and found some relevant data, I say these:
- the military expedition led by Major Gal with his detachment from Arad was probably previously coordinated with another detachment went from Oradea. The Gal-led detachment advanced on the direction Siria -Pancota -Tarnova -Buteni -Gurahont -Gura Vaii -Varfurile while the Oradea detachment advanced on the direction Beius -Rieni -Stei -Vascau -Grosi -Varfurile. The detachment from Arad consisted of the newly established 29. honved battalion and also and irregular troops (militia) from Arad and Zarand counties while the detachment from Oradea consisted of the newly established 27. honved battalion and irregular troops (militia) from Bihor county. It is noted that they (the hungarian authorities) succeed to complete the arming with military firearms ("french flintlock muskets" as was then known the austrian flintocks M1798, M1807 or M1828, who were inspired by the french rifles from the napoleonean era) the two honved battalions, while the hungarian militia accompanying them was armed mostly with spears and war scythes! The Gal-led expedition has a special significance for us, as victories scored by them in the battles from Poienari (7 november), Tarnava (8 november) and Brad (10 november) seriously affected the (Buteanu-led) Zarand Legion, and especially the control over the Halmagiu -Baia de Cris -Brad area, which was occupied almost without opposition by the hungarian forces later, in early 1849! We should also not forget that almost all offensive actions of the hungarian forces against romanian forces from the Apuseni Mountains in spring-summer 1849 started from the Brad region! The documents published in the book, translated into Romanian, evoke a state of insufficient organization of Romanian forces, surprised by the hungarian military action, with the consequences above-mentioned!

Posted by: 21 inf April 07, 2012 03:46 pm
Andreas, search on after Lupta de la Poienari and other fights against Gal Laszlo

Posted by: ANDREAS April 07, 2012 08:17 pm
Thanks 21inf, I knew the site and appreciate it very much!
About the information posted there, I can only say that I don't contradict them, but the data posted above are taken from the minutes of the sentences given by the Military Courts led by Major Gal, translated in romanian in the book! Obviously I have extract from them only few military informations...

Posted by: ANDREAS April 08, 2012 10:13 am
Of course I noticed the difference in equipment (infantry muskets) described in "Enciclopedia Romaniei" site, for the Hungarian troops, compared to to that evidenced in the book... I have no comments to make...
Regarding the hungarian military units participating in the operation I mention that there were indeed only two honved companies taking part, one from Arad (from the 29 Battalion) and one from Oradea (from the 27 Battalion)!
I do not know if the Hungarian success was due to the superior firepower, surprise or poor instruction of Romanian forces but it was unprecedented and with large consequences in the future, as mentioned above!

Posted by: 21 inf April 08, 2012 06:25 pm
Well, the article in ER might have some mistakes regarding equipment, as I wrote with the sources available to me at that time. New info or corections might surface as I continue to study.

About the hungarian victories, there might be some reasons: romanian forces were hastily raised and my suposition is that romanian Landsturm from Gura Văii, Hălmagiu and Poienari were with no military training as other legions had; overwhelming hungarian firepower; more experienced hungarian fighters than romanians; poor romanian leadership. In further battles romanian trained Landsturm and better armed successfully oposed great numbers of honveds. Consequences on long term might be minor for romanians after Gal's expedition, as we can see the same area Gal crossed in romanian hands in February, March, May 1849 and a high decree of unsecurity for Kemeny's 4.000-6.000 troops in early June 1849.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 08, 2012 07:56 pm
21inf, when I was talking about big and long-term consequences of the military -punitive action led by Major Gal I had in mind the fact that further military actions of the hungarian troops led by Major Beke Ioszef (second half of January 1849), and later Major Csutak Kalman (second half of February 1849 and again in mid-March 1849) managed to take, after fighting something less intense (than those from november 1848), the area Halmagiu -Baia de Cris -Brad. The Romanian troops led by Buteanu obviously have not risked an open resistance like those that brought them the defeats in November 1848, which was a good decision, but also failed to transform the area Halmagiu -Baia de Cris -Brad into a safe supply and recovery zone for the romanian troops. That notion "safe supply and recovery zone", in strictly military terms, express a need for a long term armed resistance to have such areas where troops can hide, recover and rest! But even so the armed resistance in the Apuseni Mountains was successful, so that loss of control of this area did not affect the resistance battle! I think you understand what I meant talking so much about this fight!

Posted by: 21 inf April 09, 2012 09:19 am
Strategically speaking, in early november 1848 when Gal entered Zarand, the iniative in Transylvania was in austrian hand. On 6 november started the operations against Cluj from Alba Iulia-Blaj area with massive romanian participation. In that area were concentrated most of romanian legions: Legion of Zarand, Legion Auraria Gemina, Legion Prima Blasiana, part of Legion of Hunedoara, part of Legion of Sibiu and part of Legion of Sebes, part of Legion of Campie. If the austrian plan of conquering Ciucea Pass in december 1848, the route of invasion of Hungary would be opened and the area of eastern Zarand became of secondary importance. In tactical terms, the expedition of Gal was a success, but zero in terms of strategic importance.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 09, 2012 09:36 pm
Largely I agree on what you said, 21inf, but the situation in this area concerned, according to the book "Der Winter-Feldzug des Revolutionskrieges in Siebenbürgen in den Jahren 1848 und 1849" (The Winter Campaign of the Revolutionwar in Transylvania in the years 1848 and 1849) published in Leipzig in 1861, the Austrian High Command in Sibiu.
There is mentioned on some level of detail the military situation in the White Cris and Mures valleys, especially from the area Halmagiu -Baia de Cris -Brad and also Zam from end october to mid-december 1848. The Austrian Command concern came following the increased Hungarian rebels military activity in the area where the austrian forces were very weak (around the area, in early November 1848, there were only one Battalion of Romanian border guards and half a squadron of Romanian Hussars concentrated in the Deva region). Later after Brad was occupied by Hungarian troops, the Austrian Command mobilized all available forces (one company and half a squadron of Romanian border guards, one national guard detachment from Orastie and one company from the 51. Carl Ferdinand Regiment) to drive out the Hungarians from the area. Luckily, it's written in the book, the Hungarians retreated (from Brad) without a fight, back in their land. Just as worrying was the situation in the Zam area, where the Hungarian troops pushed back the Romanian border guards company and burned the castle of the Baron Vasile Nopcea. Only the intervention of troops sent from Timisoara restored, for a time, the situation. Another action of the Hungarian rebels in early December 1848 led to the withdrawal of the two companies from Zam (Romanian border guards company and a company from the 51. Carl Ferdinand Regiment) back to Deva. Its written that the attacking Hungarian detachment was very well armed and good led and the austrian forces couldn't resist them! The importance given on those fights by the Austrian command is a result of the link between the theater of operations from Transylvania whith that from Banat, threatened by the Hungarian actions in this area!

Posted by: ANDREAS April 10, 2012 11:45 pm
I found an interesting information about the Hungarian detachment who pushed back from Zam to Deva the Major Riebl detachment (two companies of the Austrian army, including one of Romanian border guards) -it was the Torontal volunteer national guard battalion (volunteer unit) from Arad (which becomes, at the beginning of 1849, the 72. Honved Battalion) led by captain Asztalos Sandor. Maybe not the entire unit but the bulk of this battalion (700 from about 1100 men) advanced from Arad on the direction Soimos -Odvos -Conop -Savarsin -Zam where they repelled the austrian troops. The surprise consists in the fact that, traditionally (even in the memoirs of General Gőrgey!) the national guard troops (and later even the honveds) were viewed with skepticism, as not very reliable units, fleeing from the battlefield when the fighting became too intense... in this action at least they did well against the Austrian army, although, we must say that the austrians (including the romanian grenzers) probably did not oppose a too bitter resistance.

Posted by: 21 inf April 11, 2012 04:27 am
In that period (early 1849), the austrian army in Transylvania was redeploying it's forces due to the defeat in Ciucea Pass. As far as I know, major Riebel was sent in that area from Alba Iulia Festung and had sometimes orders to come back to the Festung, were he received orders to re-redeploy in other parts. It was not only his case, captain Cernovich was in the same situation coming and going from Zarand and Deva Festung to Alba Iulia as long as March 1849.

It would be interesting to find what were the orders of major Riebel, maybe that's why he didnt fight back torontal volunteers. Or, maybe simply, he was outnumbered...

Posted by: ANDREAS April 11, 2012 11:02 pm
As I've read in the book mentioned above, your assumption related to the reasons for the withdrawal of major Riebel detachment is credible, as long as his detachment together with other units (1 Battalion from the Baron Bianchi Line Infantry Regiment, 1 Light Cavalry Squadron, half-Squadron Romanian Border Hussars, 1 3pdr gun battery with 6 cannons and 1200 men Romanian Landsturm) will soon attack (3 days after the "defeat" in Zam!). The attack will take place on another direction (then the one of the Mures valley from where the Hungarian attack took place few days before!) Deva -Dobra -Faget -Costeiu -Hodos -Alios -Arad (in Banat, south of Mures valley and Lipova hills) in order to support the besieged garrison in Arad fortress. The 2100 men strong group led by Lieutenant major Berger (including the Major Riebel detachment) managed to break the blockade of the fortress Arad, encircled by the hungarian division led by Colonel Mariassy Janos (8.000 men strong and 20 cannons).
I found some interesting details about the Hungarian troops involved in the battles, from Mariassy led-division: 29, 30, 58 Honved Battalions (the first battalion was fully equipped with firearms -"french flintlock muskets", the second only half equipped with firearms, the third almost entirely equipped with war scythes!), Polish Volunteer Battalion or Wysocki Battalion -mostly equipped with firearms, Torontali Volunteer National Guard Battalion -fully equipped with firearms, 1st Sekler Border Guard Battalion -entirely equipped with firearms (new-type infantry muskets), 2 National Guard Companies from Debrecen and 2 National Guard Companies from Bekes -poorly equipped with firearms. I mentioned their firearms equipment to have a picture of the endowment level at which the Hungarians were in mid-December 1848.
A necessary specification: all battles metioned above took place in December 1848 not later!

Posted by: 21 inf April 12, 2012 03:21 pm
The equipment of hungarian troops was normal for the period, as they took over armament from austrian army, mainly. The national guards were armed as they could, with non-firing weapons, mainly war scythes. The new system infantry muskets you say that szekler grenzers had were Augustin 1842M with "capsă" (gyutacs in hungarian), the same that armed romanian grenzer regiments and austrian line infantry.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 12, 2012 08:40 pm
21inf, indeed so seems to result from the endowment of the Hungarian troops from the Arad county, the flintlock muskets (probably the types M1798, M1807, M1828) were the majority of existing firearms! The possible reason was that the Austrians gave to the Hungarians until the actually break of relations from September -October 1848 only old weapons, physically and morally obsolete. This situation probably not persist for a long time because the Hungarians began to produce (from late autumn 1848) modern models like the Augustin modified tubelock system rifles M1841, M1842 and M1844, types used by the Austrian army back then!
Do you know what was the practical difference in the firing cadence of the two types of firearms (flintock and percussion -the austrian used a variety of percussion system called tubelock system)? Which was the advantage in the battle of the shooters equipped with percussion type firearms compared to those equipped with flintlocks?

Posted by: 21 inf April 13, 2012 03:53 am
The tubelock sistem had great advantage over the flintlock not only on firing rate but also on chances to ignite the powder. The flintlock had a rate of misfiring of up to 30% in comparison with tubelock which misfired only 2-3%. Also, the flint needed to be changed at every 6-10 fires as it didnt produced sparks after that number of shootings. The tubelock didnt had this problem. I dont have yet info about diference upon rate of fire, but for sure it was a good diference between the 2 types of weapons. Anyway, the tubelock type was easier to load.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 13, 2012 11:04 pm
Thanks for informations 21inf! I have also found a free e-book on Google published in Munchen in 1851, which refers to all firing systems for the infantry rifles used in European countries back than, where is described, among others, the Austrian "Zünderschlossysem Konsol-Augustin". This firing system is criticized from some points of view and appreciated from others. It says for example that after extensive testing of the rifles using this system only 69 from 40.000 shootings were misfire!

Posted by: ANDREAS April 14, 2012 10:16 am
The rifle M1838 who adopted in 1842 the Konsol-Augustin tubelock system, was criticized as being bit longer and something heavier than her contemporary British, French, Prussian and Russian counterparts (all percussion rifles), therefore more difficult to handle, without instead gaining in performance. The austrian percussion system Konsol-Augustin (actually a transitional version to percussion later adopted through the Lorenz rifle in 1855) was also criticized as being quite complicated and therefore difficult to use by inexperienced troops, demanding on ordinary soldiers a level of training higher than that required for a caplock rifle. But they say that when the Konsol-Augustin ignition system was tested (1838-40) he seemed more reliable than that used by contemporary caplock rifles and far superior in performance over the older flintlocks! Also the Konsol-Augustin ignition system was considered as being far more safer in use for ordinary soldiers than the percussion one!
Over what you wrote about rate of misfire on flintlocks, you are right but only regarding early napoleonic-era flintlocks, who had a rate of misfire from 30 to 40%, the later models like the austrian M1807 modified in M1828 flintlocks had a rate of misfire of only 7 to 10%, proved by intensive testing on a large number of weapons made in 1831-32 in Vienna!

Posted by: ANDREAS April 28, 2012 11:07 am
In this post:
you say that Dragoş was not a spy, he was what we would call today "a căzut de fraier" a statement which should, I think, be nuanced! I say that because, based on the study called "Ioan Buteanu, the Prefect of the Zarand in the years 1848-49" written by Silviu Dragomir, Dragos sincerely wanted to make peace between the motzes and the hungarians (possible for selfish reasons!) but was well aware of the risk at which he was subject to! He said in a letter addressed to Kossuth in 3 may 1849 in which he ask Kossuth for clarification of the general amnesty given to the Romanian fighters (in fact the phrase is doubtful about this amnesty!) he shows that he knows that there was no truce ordered to the Hungarian troops during negotiations, so that Hatvany's troops attack was not really surprising to him (even though, obviously, he didn't wanted it)! So he was dishonest to the romanian tribunes that have met at Mihaileni! Indeed he was not a traitor, but even without his will, he bring much harm to the cause of the Romanians resisting in the mountains!

Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (