Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > 1878 Romania


Posted by: Benoit Douville July 26, 2005 01:28 am
It is exact to say that Romania started officialy to exist in 1878 at the Berlin summit when they recognized the independance of Romania or is it earlier?

Posted by: Carol I July 26, 2005 07:12 am
It depends on what you may consider as 'officially'. The name 'Romania' was adopted and recognised officially in 1862 to designate the autonomous state formed through the union of the Danube Principalities of Moldavia and Walachia. Since then there were several official acts which proved the existence of the state, as was for example the issue of coins in 1867 bearing the name of the state: 'Romania' (see below).

user posted image
Source: Internet auction

The independence was indeed recognised at the 1878 Berlin Congress, but Romania declared itself independent on http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2115. The question is, in case of a successful declaration of independence, is it the date of declaration, or the date when the first (or maybe the last) state recognises the new political status that a state becomes 'officially' independent? I am afraid that we might have to ask a lawyer specialised in this particular area.

Posted by: Benoit Douville July 27, 2005 12:08 am
Carol I,

I appreciated the info and the picture. I see that there is a lot of dates concerning the independance of Romania: 1862- 1867- 1877-1878. What you and the other Romanians think is the right date?

Regards

Posted by: Carol I July 27, 2005 12:23 am
The Independence Day is 9 May 1877, the day the Parliament has proclaimed the independence of Romania.

Posted by: Imperialist July 29, 2005 03:50 pm
QUOTE (Benoit Douville @ Jul 26 2005, 01:28 AM)
It is exact to say that Romania started officialy to exist in 1878 at the Berlin summit when they recognized the independance of Romania or is it earlier?

In 1859 the 2 Principalities Moldova and Wallachia united, and formed the United Principalities - the official name.
But the goal of the romanians was the creation of "Romania", the romanian state.
Though the United Principalities were recognised officially, the name "Romania" was not, and the romanian politicians' goals were to obtain the recognition of the unification under the name "Romania", and obtaining independance under this name.
The smaller powers, like Serbia, were ready to recognize the new state under that name, but the greater powers were not. Because the recognition of the United Principalities in their view did not mean recognising their independance too.
The great powers were ready to recognise the new name "Romania" on condition the new state retains its vassal condition, and its lack of independence.
So the romanian politicians refused the compromise, and so the recognition of the official name of "Romania" had to coincide with obtaining the full independence. It was a political decision, because if the political compromise would have been chosen "Romania" would have come into official existence in 1859 or shortly after, but it would not have been independant.

I hope I was as clear as possible, looking back, it does look a bit unclear. If you want something better clarified, please feel free to ask.

biggrin.gif

take care

Posted by: Carol I July 29, 2005 04:30 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM)
So the romanian politicians refused the compromise, and so the recognition of the official name of "Romania" had to coincide with obtaining the full independence. It was a political decision, because if the political compromise would have been chosen "Romania" would have come into official existence in 1859 or shortly after, but it would not have been independant.

Then, what is the meaning of the inscription 'Romania' on the 1867 coins or on the 1872 stamps?

Posted by: sid guttridge July 29, 2005 04:45 pm
Hi Guys,

Similar questions can be raised about the date of US independence.

The US declared independence in 1776, but it only became a formally recognised state with the peace treaty which was, I think, in 1784.

I had great fun teasing my American friends that they had got the timing of their bicentennial celebtations wrong in 1976. I maintained that it should have been in 1984.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Imperialist July 29, 2005 08:15 pm
QUOTE (Carol I @ Jul 29 2005, 04:30 PM)

Then, what is the meaning of the inscription 'Romania' on the 1867 coins or on the 1872 stamps?

From what I know the Romanian Mint was established in 1870, so I dont know what that 1867 coin could be.
So I dont know, we need more details about that coin.


For sure the term "Romania" was present in political speeches ever since 1859, but I am not aware of the 1862 official recognition of the term. Can you please give more details about that, its interesting. I know that up to 1868 the United Principality government tried to convince the great powers to recognise the new "Romania", so whats with the 1862 recognition? Please tell more.

I'll also research more on the subject,

take care

Posted by: Imperialist July 29, 2005 09:03 pm
Carol, in the material I have, 1962 is the date of guarantee power recognition of the principalities' unification (no word of them recognising "Romania") and in the alternative schoolbook I used in the 12th grade and dug out of my "archive" just now, under 24th January 1862 is listed the first Assembly of the United Principalities taking place. Again, not of "Romania".
So, from that and the fact that the UP's government continued up to 1868 to lobby the great powers for the recognition of their unification under the title "Romania", I am really curious if you know something else about that 1862 recognition.
I have also seen Cuza's speech on January 24th 1862, after that recognition, and he indeed speaks about "Romania".
So yes, the discrepancies puzzle me. I'll try to dig further. Suffice to say the Romanian History taught these days is sublime but lacks entirely... biggrin.gif

take care

Posted by: Jeff_S July 29, 2005 09:30 pm
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 29 2005, 04:45 PM)
Hi Guys,

Similar questions can be raised about the date of US independence.

The US declared independence in 1776, but it only became a formally recognised state with the peace treaty which was, I think, in 1784.

The Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution was signed on September 3, 1783.

The first official recognition of the independent colonies was in 1778, when the Continental Navy ship Ranger was http://www.sartori.com/nhc/frames/faqs/faq40-1.html by the French. The first time the US flag was saluted was in November 1776 by the governor of Statia in the Caribbean, but that was only because he did not recognize the flag.

QUOTE
I had great fun teasing my American friends that they had got the timing of their bicentennial celebtations wrong in 1976. I maintained that it should have been in 1984.


"American friends?" blink.gif Considering your vast erudition, I just assumed you were American.

I also have friends who believe the US should have honored 1984 with more ceremony... but they had entirely different reasons. A colleague of mine had an amusing comic on his wall: at the top it read "National Security Agency" and at the bottom "1984... We're Behind Schedule".

Posted by: Carol I July 29, 2005 10:33 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 29 2005, 09:15 PM)
From what I know the Romanian Mint was established in 1870, so I dont know what that 1867 coin could be.
So I dont know, we need more details about that coin.

In 1867 the first coins of the state of Romania were issued. The coins were minted in Britain and as stated above they bore the name of the state that issued them: 'Romania'.

user posted image

The first stamps that carried the name 'Romania' were issued in 1872. Up to that moment, the stamps were marked Poşta Română (Romanian Post).

So it seems that there were several official references to 'Romania' before the declaration of independence of 1877 or the recognition of 1878.

Posted by: Carol I July 29, 2005 10:47 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 29 2005, 10:03 PM)
Carol, in the material I have, 1962 is the date of guarantee power recognition of the principalities' unification (no word of them recognising "Romania") and in the alternative schoolbook I used in the 12th grade and dug out of my "archive" just now, under 24th January 1862 is listed the first Assembly of the United Principalities taking place. Again, not of "Romania".
  So, from that and the fact that the UP's government continued up to 1868 to lobby the great powers for the recognition of their unification under the title "Romania", I am really curious if you know something else about that 1862 recognition.
  I have also seen Cuza's speech on January 24th 1862, after that recognition, and he indeed speaks about "Romania".

As far as I know, in 1862 the union of the Danube Principalities was recognised by the Ottoman Porte as completed and the dual institutions ceased to exist (i.e., from that point on there was one assembly, one government etc.). I do not know whether at that date there was a formal proclamation of the name of the state which was then recognised, but from that point on it assumed the name 'Romania' and used it officially.

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 29 2005, 10:03 PM)
Suffice to say the Romanian History taught these days is sublime but lacks entirely...  biggrin.gif

I have to agree to that. It is quite an unfortunate situation.

Posted by: Imperialist July 29, 2005 11:04 pm
QUOTE (Carol I @ Jul 29 2005, 10:47 PM)

As far as I know, in 1862 the union of the Danube Principalities was recognised by the Ottoman Porte as completed and the dual institutions ceased to exist (i.e., from that point on there was one assembly, one government etc.). I do not know whether at that date there was a formal proclamation of the name of the state which was then recognised, but from that point on it assumed the name 'Romania' and used it officially.

Carol, in the documents I've seen, several terms are used at the same time.
Romania, United Principalities, Moldo-Wallachian territories, Principalities, or the Double/Dual Election. These are used sometimes in the same diplomatic message.
So its pretty hard to pin exactly when "Romania" became the norm.
I'll check tomorrow in my past issues of "Magazin Istoric", if my memory does not fail, I think they had an article about this some years ago, or was it about the first appearance of the "Tricolor"... well, I'll see what I can find.

p.s. but to be entirely exact, the Constitution of 1866 does name the United Romanian Principalities, the state of "Romania".
I think claiming that to be a safe date for the official "start" of Romania's existence would be OK, with or without independence.
So 1866 should be the date for the , so that the coin you mention in 1867 comes just in time.

p.s.2 So I think that after 1866 the romanian politicians were lobbying the great powers to recognise the new state of Romania, internally officialised thru the Constitution.

So my previous statement :
QUOTE
"So the romanian politicians refused the compromise, and so the recognition of the official name of "Romania" had to coincide with obtaining the full independence."


must be an error, since the politicians DID adopt the term "Romania" in the Constitution.

Sorry for that, I'm the product of the post-89 system, and romanian history we skipped during highschool, because we had the "BAC" coming and we had to learn foreign languages and other things... rolleyes.gif Since then I'm pretty much trying to recoup by using various documents and sources...



take care

Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2005 02:49 am
Excerpt from the history book, 'Istoria României', by Barbulescu, Deletant, Hitchins, Papacostea & Teodor (Corint, Bucharest, 2002), p. 306:
QUOTE
Termenul "România", care fusese frecvent, dar neoficial, folosit in anii '50 [the 1850s, that is], cu referire la un stat unitar, situat intre Marea Neagra si Muntii Carpati, a devenit acum [on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani] numele curent al Principatelor Unite si, incepind din 1862, a fost folosit in actele oficiale ale tarii.

Would someone care to translate it, as I currently don't have the time? Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2005 03:03 am
QUOTE (Carol I @ Jul 30 2005, 04:33 AM)
The first stamps that carried the name 'Romania' were issued in 1872.

Here is what I found on this issue:
QUOTE
The first stamps of Romania were issued at 26 June 1862

Source: http://www.stampdomain.com/country/romania/display.htm

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist July 30, 2005 09:42 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 02:49 AM)
Excerpt from the history book, 'Istoria României', by Barbulescu, Deletant, Hitchins, Papacostea & Teodor (Corint, Bucharest, 2002), p. 306:
QUOTE
Termenul "România", care fusese frecvent, dar neoficial, folosit in anii '50 [the 1850s, that is], cu referire la un stat unitar, situat intre Marea Neagra si Muntii Carpati, a devenit acum [on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani] numele curent al Principatelor Unite si, incepind din 1862, a fost folosit in actele oficiale ale tarii.

Would someone care to translate it, as I currently don't have the time? Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

QUOTE
The term "Romania", which was used frequently but unofficially in the 1850s, and referring to a unitary state between the Black Sea and the Carpathians now became ( on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani) the current name of the United Principalities and, starting with 1862 has been used in the official acts of the country.


Great info. The "alternative" schoolbook we used in the 12th grade was (maybe not surprisingly?) edited by ... Humanitas. No wonder its so unclear, I'd dare to say... wink.gif

Yes, it seems that there is the confusion between the internal use and of "Romania" and the external recognition.
Though internally the term started to be used officially, it seems it still had to be recognised externally.
And apparently that recognition came to coincide with the full gain of independence.


Here is what historian Dan Berindei said about it in his introduction to "Independenta Romaniei. Documente" :

QUOTE
In aceste conditii si cand intre Serbia si Romania se ajunsese chiar la incheierea unei aliante [1868] nu este de mirare ca la Belgrad nu va exista nici o opozitie fata de hotararea guvernului de la Bucuresti de a cere celorlalte state sa-i recunoasca denumirea de Romania, in timp ce Bismarck va conditiona recunoasterea de ctare Prusia a acestei denumiri, a unei decoratii romanesti si a monedei nationale de o acceptare prealabila din partea Portii otomane.
  La randul ei, Austro-Ungaria, dispusa de a accepta noua denumire, s-a grabit insa a pune si ea conditia baterii monedelor romanesti cu semnul de vasalitate pretins de Turcia.


take care


Posted by: Victor August 01, 2005 05:37 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 04:49 AM)
Excerpt from the history book, 'Istoria României', by Barbulescu, Deletant, Hitchins, Papacostea & Teodor (Corint, Bucharest, 2002), p. 306:
QUOTE
Termenul "România", care fusese frecvent, dar neoficial, folosit in anii '50 [the 1850s, that is], cu referire la un stat unitar, situat intre Marea Neagra si Muntii Carpati, a devenit acum [on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani] numele curent al Principatelor Unite si, incepind din 1862, a fost folosit in actele oficiale ale tarii.

Would someone care to translate it, as I currently don't have the time? Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

The term of Romania, which had been frequently used in the 1850s, but unofficially, in the context of a state spreading from the Black Sea to the Carpathians, had become now the current name of the United Principalities and, starting from 1862, it was used in the official country's documents.

Posted by: Carol I August 14, 2005 07:55 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 30 2005, 12:04 AM)
p.s. but to be entirely exact, the Constitution of 1866 does name the United Romanian Principalities, the state of "Romania".
  I think claiming that to be a safe date for the official "start" of Romania's existence would be OK, with or without independence.

I would still say that 1862 is the year when the name 'Romania' started to be used officially (see http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2331&view=findpost&p=36569).

Posted by: Imperialist August 14, 2005 08:13 am
QUOTE (Carol I @ Aug 14 2005, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 30 2005, 12:04 AM)
p.s. but to be entirely exact, the Constitution of 1866 does name the United Romanian Principalities, the state of "Romania".
  I think claiming that to be a safe date for the official "start" of Romania's existence would be OK, with or without independence.

I would still say that 1862 is the year when the name 'Romania' started to be used officially (see http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2331&view=findpost&p=36569).

Yes, I saw last night an interesting show on OTV with very important historians.
Mircea Dogaru said something about December 1861 relating to the name of Romania.

I have agreed with Denes, as he had the better info on this.
I mentioned the 1866 Constitution as the best and safest proof, until further contributions, that the term Romania did afterall appear before 1877/78.

Anyways, I'm surprised I did not find that info in the history school manual I still have since the 12th grade.
Maybe we should open a new discussion about the state of Romanian education in another section.
At least with romanian history part. From what I know in communist times the history of Romania was taught in 2 school years, the 11th and the 12th grade. Now it has been reduced to the 12th grade, and obviously the level of info has been scaled down only to the essential. Also history is not compulsory at the BAC, at least the last time I checked, a couple of years ago. So students simply ignored it and focused on their selected subjects for BAC. This combined with increasingly weaker teachers (with not enough stature to impose themselves on unruly students in the last year of highschool) is a disaster for teaching romanian history.
Apart from those who actually apply to the History Faculty, I think the next generation is pretty history-chalanged.

take care

Posted by: Carol I August 14, 2005 09:18 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 04:03 AM)
QUOTE (Carol I @ Jul 30 2005, 04:33 AM)
The first stamps that carried the name 'Romania' were issued in 1872.

Here is what I found on this issue:
QUOTE
The first stamps of Romania were issued at 26 June 1862

Source: http://www.stampdomain.com/country/romania/display.htm

This does not contradict what I have said. Indeed, the first stamps of Romania were issued on 26 June 1862, but - not unusual for that time - they did not have any inscription to identify the issuer (see below).

user posted image
Source: http://mairie.wanadoo.fr/afef.didier/x_cadvalachie.htm

The inscription Poşta Română (Romanian Post) appeared on the stamps issued on 21 January 1865 with the effigy of Prince Cuza.

user posted image
Source: http://www.sp-stamps.ro/classfied/classic.htm

The inscription was maintained through the first years of Prince Carol I reign, being replaced by 'Romania' only on 18 October 1872.

user posted image
Source: http://www.federatia-filatelica.ro/pagini/descop-eng.htm

It should also be mentioned that the first stamps issued in Romania were in fact the 'Auroch Heads' put into circulation by the postal administration of the Principality of Moldavia on 22 July 1858. The second issue of 'Auroch Heads' (of 1 Novemver 1858) were sold up until 5 May 1862, so it may truly be said that they were Romanian stamps as well.

user posted image
Source: http://www.federatia-filatelica.ro/index-eng.htm

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)