Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) [1] 2 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Reorganizing the pre-WW2 military section
Victor
Posted: June 26, 2005 06:55 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Recently there have been some suggestions from several members about the opportunity of reorganizing this section, which covers a very large part of history.

My personal view on the subject is to brake up the section into several pieces:

1. Pre-Independence history (or pre-19th century history)
2. Independece War
3. WW1 (1913-1919)
4. Romanian Army in the inter-war period

There is still much work to be done in WW2 section of the site and adding more details about WW1 or the Independence War is something out of reach for the moment being. So we may as well encourage the discussions on the forum about them, by creating special sections.

Would do you think about this? We are waiting for feedback from you.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Carol I
Posted: June 26, 2005 07:36 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



It would indeed be easier to use the 'The pre-WW2 military' section with the new structure, even though its volume might not seem to justify a reorganisation. On the other hand, I wonder whether such a measure will encourage the potential posters which might find their way easier through the various topics.

Do you think that your third subsection would fare better split into two: 'The 1913 campaign' and 'WWI (1916-1919)'?
PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted: June 27, 2005 06:12 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004




Good!

In this way popularity of that subforum will have more succes. And, Carol I gave a good ideea.

Maybe a section dedicated to earlier history will be another useful ideea - a place dedicated to Dacia and a period of time up and down to this reper?


Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos03
Posted: June 27, 2005 11:40 am
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 641
Member No.: 163
Joined: December 13, 2003



I think it's useless to have a special section about the 1913 campaign. Not too much to talk about.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: June 27, 2005 12:58 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos03 @ Jun 27 2005, 11:40 AM)
I think it's useless to have a special section about the 1913 campaign. Not too much to talk about.

There is a lot to talk about, not much info maybe.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: June 27, 2005 04:10 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Given teh fact that there haven't been many (if any discussions) about it so far, Ithink it can ver ywell be included in the WW1 section, along with teh 1919 campaign.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: June 27, 2005 04:36 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



I also think the 1913, the 1916-1918 and the 1918-1919 campaigns could be included in one sub-chapter, under 'WW1 and Local Wars', or similar title.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos03
Posted: June 27, 2005 04:44 pm
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 641
Member No.: 163
Joined: December 13, 2003



Maybe the 1913 and 1919 wars, along with the battles with the Red Army, could get a separate section, in order to encourage interest in these forgotten campaigns.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: June 27, 2005 05:07 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



For now I think the following structure for the pre-WW2 section is sufficient:

Pre-WW2 Romanian Military History

Ancient, Medieval and Modern History
Covers the old history of the region, the Independence War (1877-1878), and the post-Independence War period up to the First Balkan War (1912)

WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919)
Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and in the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

The Interwar Period (1920-1940)
Romanian Army and the International Context of the Interwar Period
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: June 27, 2005 06:10 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 27 2005, 11:07 PM)
the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: June 27, 2005 06:49 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 06:10 PM)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes

Only slightly, in the fact that rabid empires were broken during those 2 wars. But in the case of our NRW no new empire emerged after the war, like it did after the GPW. Ours was a national war.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: June 27, 2005 06:57 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 09:10 PM)
QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 27 2005, 11:07 PM)
the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes

Leaving aside the obvious irony, why should not the foreign visitors find out about the National Reunification War, since the Great Patriotic War is much more known?
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: June 27, 2005 07:59 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 28 2005, 12:57 AM)
Leaving aside the obvious irony, why should not the foreign visitors find out about the National Reunification War, since the Great Patriotic War is much more known?

Leaving the obvious irony aside, why complicate matters, particularly in titles, confusing prospective foreign visitors?

IIRC, this forum is supposed to be an international forum in English language on the history of the Rumanian military; therefore, I think internationally recognized terms should be used. World War 1 is such an instantly recognizable historical term, as NRW doesn't say much, if any.

Of course, if you wish you can enlighten the uninitiated to the latest terms used exclusively by a segment of current Rumanian historiography; however, I think titles should be short and concise. The KISS theory, you know...

This is just an educated opinion, of course. The administrators are free to implement their own views.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2005 08:04 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: June 27, 2005 08:04 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Denes)
IIRC, this forum is supposed to be an international forum in English language on the history of the Rumanian military; therefore, I think internationally recognized terms should be used. World War 1 is such an instantly recognizable historical term, as NRW doesn't say much, if any.


WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919)
Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and in the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

World War 1 is present in the forum's title, the National Reunification War is in the forum's description, below the title. Is this ok with you?
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: June 27, 2005 08:14 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



Dragos, as I said, it's your (and Victor's) forum. You do whatever pleases you.

This having been said, personally I see a logical contradiction in the title and subtitle. If you talk of WW1 in the title, then why are you referring to NRW in the sub-title? Wouldn't it be much simpler to use in the sub-title clear and neutral terms, like:
The Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), W.W. 1 (1916-1918) and the Local Campaigns of 1918-1919?

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Recently I read, in English, a book on the recent history of Bulgaria, for one of the projects I am working on. It struck me, among others, the usage of terms unfamiliar to me, like the 'National Renaissance War' (IIRC) (referring to the 1878-1879 war) and the 'September War' (referring to the early stage of the anti-Axis campaign of Sept. 1944). I think such confusing terms should be avoided in English language literature.
Based on this logic, I try to avoid using the term 'Western Front' when referring to the Rumanian Armed Forces' activity after August 23, 1944, regardless the term being widely used in the Rumanian language literature. I rather mention the events as the anti-Axis campaign, or mention the term as "the so-called 'Western Front'".

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2005 08:21 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0399 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]