Romanian brilliant tactical victorys in pre ww2 history?

After the battle at Calugareni the Ottomans actually occupied both Bucharest and Targoviste and were getting ready for a lengthy stay. But the guerilla war against the occupation army combined with the military aid that Bathory and Razvan eventually sent (around 40,000 troops) helped Mihai push them out.

The Saint Georgio battle you mention is probably the one at Giurgiu, not Sfantu Gheorghe (was there a battle involving the Ottomans at Sfantu Gheorghe that year?), because the Ottomans were kicked over the Danube at Giurgiu. The Turkish historians were to note that such a disastrous retreat and defeat had never before been registered.

True, it's about Giurgiu, in Italian Chronicles Saint Giorgio (see History of Michael the Brave, 5 volumes). Battle was during 27 to 30 octomber 1595, and was a disaster for Otoman troops (about 30000 killed, many drowned in Danube). Fortress of Giurgiu was also conquered by Italian elite fighters (from Toscana) who entered through the demolished part of the wall. 6000 Romanian prisoniers were freed.
Mustafa Naima, a Turk chronicar, said here it was the greatest disaster for Otoman army.

30.000?!

Sounds like a Balkan Wars or WWWI level of loss.

True, it seems much, I just only cited the contemporary chronicles.
But are also some facts. Michael the Brave taken them totally by surprise. The bulk ottoman army was heading to the bridge across Danube, were it has the "customs". Every soldier who wants to cross in Ottoman Empire with some lootings, must pay a tax. For example, for a sheep, a few coins. Tax collection works slowly, and the main corp of army was herding near the bridge. When cavalery corps of Michael the Brave appeared, it was a great panic among the turks. Romanian artillery begin to fire full rounds in herded turks, and cavalery charged. There was not any line of battle in ottoman army. Everybody fled to the bridge, to escape. Bridge was bombed and it colapsed, full of troops. Michael the Brave charged again and again the isolated ottoman corps, who runs and throw themselves in Danube, tryng to swim to the other shore, but were drowning. Next, Michael take the fortress.

True, it seems much, I just only cited the contemporary chronicles.

O.K., thanks for info; one always wonders about numbers in military histories.

btw; In the broadest meaning of the terms "tactical" and "success" would not the Battles/Siege of Pleven, 1877 be the biggest??

I realize the Russians were initially the principal antagonists, but I thought it was considered an important Romanan victory, that Prince/King Carol had been the determining force factor?

And that outcome (Ottomans defeated) was especially important in formation of the modern state of Romania?

True, but we must make some observations. Maybe this topic is not enough to discuss about all the important tactical/strategic, succesfull/unsuccesfull batlles and campaigns of Romanians.
The battle of Giurgiu was a categoric tactical victory, after that, Turks don't tried some major campaigns against Michael the Brave, just some minor ones, with no major consequences. Just after the battle at Miraslau (1600), when Michael wasn't victorious, but not victorious, too, after the Poles entered Moldavia, etc, the Turks crossed Danube in large number, just to asure themselves a big share of Michael heritage. Strategically, the Giurgiu battle was a succes, Michael the Brave was assured in south, and he was ready to use all his meanings and power to achieve his goals. If he doesn't beaten the Turks so badly, maybe he will be never so able to look across the Carpathians, to Transylvania. In 1599, he throw all his avaible forces there, and achieved a great victory at Selimbar, near Sibiu.
Because the Ottomans, at that time, know a single language, and that is pure force. As an example, after the battles at Stanesti and Serpatesti, in 1594-1595, Tatar Khan was so badly defeated, when Turks ordered him to attack Michael the Brave from the east, he refused, because "he measured his forces with prince Michael, and for him is enough". Later, in 1600, when Michael was close to defeat, he attacks, but never before.

About 1877-1878 campaign. Of course, it is one of the great importance for us, the most important campaign in 19th century, of our modern times. It was the first modern campaign of our new army.
But, let's take a look at the facts. We were part of european theatre of war in this period, Russians had another front where they fight, in Caucasus. For them, bulgarian font was the main, but their forces were divided in two.
They're two battles at Plevna before Romanians intervened, at the request of Russians. In the 3rd battle of Plevna, Romanian troops (about 40000 soldiers) take the northern part of the front who besieged Plevna. In the rest were Russians (52000 soldiers) who besieged Plevna, too. One part of the southern front was led by general Skobelev (one of the most brilliant russian general, he and Suvorov, of the Russian generals before ww1, IMO)
The problem of comand was very acute. The prince Carol of Romania didn't accept that he, the military leader of Romanian troops, a true blood prince, to be under comand of some Russian officer, even he was at general rank. Russian accepted that he, prince Carol of Romania, to be the military leader of the coalition troops.
Romanian soldiers fought with bravery, there are so many references of the western press corespondents (if you want, I'll qouete some, but is rather difficult, because they're related only on books, not an a internet connection).
th emost important victory in siege against Plevna was the conquest of Grivita 1 redute, at the 4th attack, the only victory of the coalition in that battle. (30 Aug/11 Sept 1877).
This is history, were many battles and fightings, at Plevna, Rahova, Vidin, the results were known. Romania obtaina his independence, but it was just a tactical victory. At peace discussions, at San Stefano, and later, at Berlin, we obtain lesser that we deserve. We obtain Dobroja, an old Romanian land who was under Turks for centuries, but Russians taken southern Bassarabia, a land who was not russian at all (none of the parts of Bassarabia were part of Russia, russians reached Dniestr (Nistru) only in 1792. When prince Carol protested, Russians threatened with disarm af Romanian army.
The answer of Carol was:
An army who covered himself with glory at Plevna, can be crushed in battle, but never disarmed.

Yes, in some books it seems they see that one as the first victory for what would become the modern Romanian State, so I guess that would be important.

Thanks for the details.

IMO, another important victory of Romanians was in 1919 war, when we fight and conquer Budapest on our own, without tactical assistance of our allies. It was maybe the only victory in XX century obtain by Romanian troops on their own, I repeat, without allies assistance in combat.

Wrong. There was a strong co-operation between Rumanian and Czechoslovak troops, fighting the Red Army from North and East, respectively. Moreover, the Serbs were indirectly supporting the events from South. Finally, Rumanian units had French advisors (as had the Czechoslovak and Serb units, too, including Italian ones as well).

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 01, 2010 08:34 pm

I know that in first offensive of Bella Kuhn's troops against Czechoslovakian units, were some cooperations, that Romanians replied their front at Huszt to assure the continuity of fronts.
The Serbs were indirectly support the Romanians, it means they do not intervene. They just stay and wait. They do not made some offensive actions or threats against Bolsheviks.
About the French advisors in Romanian army at that time, if you had some facts, let me know, because I'm interested.
Thank you,
Contras

Serb troops did advance into Hungary and occupied a large area in the South. I don't know how much fighting occurred, however.

As for French advisors in Rumanian Army, currently I do not have time to look for details. However, Frenchie might be able to give you a few examples, as he wrote the same in his post: "French officers and soldiers (few) among the Romanian regiments as military advisors (most of the Romanian regiments had French military advisors)".
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=75764

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 02, 2010 06:36 am

True, but after the retreat of French Military Mission in Romania led by gen Berthelot (1918), they're not any French advisor, or I never get any mention about it. None in every memory book I looked.
Frenchie made just an assumption, not a statement. About French troops in Banat, they're part Franchet d'Essperey army, who were with Serbs.
If you find something, please let me know.

[From Wikipedia.fr]
"Henri Berthelot, né à Feurs (Loire) le 7 décembre 1863 et mort à Paris le 29 janvier 1931, est un général français ayant servi pendant la Première Guerre mondiale. WIKIPEDIA.FR

En 1883, après des études à l'Académie militaire de Saint-Cyr, Berthelot est affecté en Algérie, puis en Indochine.
En 1907, il est affecté à l'état-major général. En 1914, il est le chef d'Etat-Major du général Joffre.
En 1916, placé à la tête du corps français en Roumanie, il réorganise l'armée roumaine, lourdement défaite par l'Allemagne et résistant à grand peine en Moldavie.
Après son retour en France, le général Foch lui confie le commandement de la Ve armée en juillet 1918.
Il est ensuite chargé par Paris de combattre les bolchéviks russes en Bessarabie (1918) et les bolchéviks hongrois en Transylvanie (1919).

Gen. Dénes

I believe this is an exageration, because during this time, general Berthelot only took part at receptions and visits with king Ferdinand and queen Mary.
During the fightings in Basarabia, most part of it, the Nistru defensive, he was in France. I believe he mainly took part at cordination with French troops who were at Odessa.