Romanians vs Romanians in WWI

Dear Denes, please let me ask you to take a little reading of the initial program Horea's uprising from 1784 and compare it with the principles of French revolution from 1789. You will find it suprisingly similar, but the romanian social programe came 5 years earlier than the french one. It is surprising, isnt it, that such a programe came from the "dark" mind of a peasant from Apuseni Mountains, from Tara Motilor The inittial programe went eventually into a national one.

You say that the notion of nation came into romanian teritories (let's hope this include Transylvania, for the sake of this discussion) in late XVIII century. This is fitting with the year of Horea's uprising from 1784, but who believes that a nation sense apeared to romanians from Transylvania just like this, sudenly, in a few years. A less known episode from romanian history from Transylvania is the coming of Sofronie, an ortodox monk, originated from Transylvania, but emigrated as monk in Wallachia.

In 1760 he came back in Transylvania and started to make religious ortodox agitation in Zarand and Tara Motilor, in order to opose the greek catholic politics of austrians. The religious movement degenerated rapidly in a national one and Sofronie, scared about the turn of his movement, stoped all his actions.

This was in XVIII century, but this seems more like a conclusion of national feelings, not the begining of such.

One should read, just for info, what Coressi said when he started to print the first book in romanian language, much earlier than XVIII century.

As another point, I never stated that the national feelings apeared to romanians from Middle Ages for the simple reason that I dont have proves in this directions which cant be debatable. This point is valid for most of nations across Europe, not only for romanians.

But probably the "thinking out of box" includes the afirmation from the begining of this topic, about the "unique" case of romanians fighting romanians in ww1?

PS: foreign historians from a neighbor country denied the profesionalism of Silviu Dragomir and David Prodan as historians for not acusing the romanians for non-combatant victims from 1784 uprising and 1848-1849 romanian revolution from Transylvania. Question: the foreign historians are better profesionals on history fields, cos they didnt mentioned either the romanian non-combatant (civilian) victims from the same events? But this is already out of topic...

hello,

as I said, I would highly appreciate if people who strongly believe that Romanian national identity manifested itself in XVIII, or even XVI century (Michael the Brave), might stop re-inventing the same old national history. It is pointless. I am a Romanianm I have been educated in history classes in this very linear, comfortable, way of thinking about out great national heroes and our great achievements as boderlands of Christianity in defending Europe.

Everything is a myth, even saying that everything is a myth is a myth at the end of the day ))

For instance, Romanian national identity, beyond language and religion, has been born out the myth of "staying at the frontiers" (Dacians, Daco-Romans against migrators, Roumanians against the Ottomans and Russians, etc.). the problem is that Hungarians, Polish, Serbs, Croatians, Lithuanians, Finns, and Ukrainians claim the same. Nobody is right, because geopolitics is a subject of imagining like anything else.

However, what I am interested in is the way Romanian national identity has been re-enforced out of the real frontier status of some Romanians: transylvanians (greek-catholic) soldiering in the militargraenze of the Habsburgs and, on the other hand, Wallachians and Moldavians soldiering in the Russian created army of the Regulament organique. We should not forget that most of the 1848 leaders of the Wallachia and Moldova revolutions were juncari or cadeti within the Romanian army created by the Russian Empire (Balcescu, Golescu, CA Rosetti, Christian Tell, Kogalniceanu, Cuza, etc.). Some of them (Cuza, Balcescu) even travelled to Transylvania.

As I said, I am writing a PhD dissertation on Romanians' multinational and national military loyalties between 1848-1918. From what I read by now, it is a bullshit to continue to support a very comfortable and linear view of the past. THE PAST IS HOW EVERYONE IS IMAGINING IT, NOT HOW IT REALLY WAS!

P.S. I would appreciate to have names and sources (to quote) about Romanian officers and soldiers that fought loyally in the KuK and were later integrated in the Romanian National Army after 1919. Thanks for all those that can help!

Short reply for 21 Inf:

- you should never forget that Horia's led uprising' main cause was the huge desire to join the Military Grenze and escape the serv status! Everything beyond this fact is mythology.

Sebastian, I do not agree with many of your statements, and I do not agree with that who is quotted. History it was, it existed, not how you or I are iamginating, it was how it was. There is because we talk one wich other, to discuss, to made proofs, to understand how it was, not how you or I we imagine.

The fact that you are a little disapointed about the fact that

do not make you to negate all you learn about your history.
Remember what George Orwell said in his novel, 1984:
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." That it was the learning of history in that times. But do not negate everything, because is the most comfortable.

I do not agree. Not "staying at the frontieres" has born our national identity. We stayed at the frontieres because of our language and religion. We don't stayed just at the Christianity's frontieres, because at the time we defended ourselves (and Europe) from Turks, Poles, Hungarians, even Russians attacked us from rear, taken parts of our teritories, and later proclaimed that they are theirs. (invented a new history, as I quotted from George Orwell).
Another fact, we, Romanians, were the only latin people remained in zone, surrounded by Slaves and Fino-Ugrics. And that is not enough to consolidate a national identity? Based by language and religion?
If you talked again about myths, look at the Poles, for example: the fact that in sec XVIII they were divided by Russia and Austria, you think was without importance in their upprisings and revolutions, it was without importance in development of a national concience? Or you think their revolutions were without national character at all?

Sebastian, you should read more about Horea's reasons to rise the peasants. The main reason of the uprising was not the will to join grenz regiments. The main reason was the desire of not to be serfs anymore, which turned really fast in a ethnic reason. The joining to grenz regiments was only a way to escape to be a serf, a legal and peacefull one.

Probably your question marks about elevated national conscience in Apuseni Mountains in XVIII century comes because in the rest of romanian inhabited teritories (at least in Transylvania) was not so visible or at least not so spoken out. The Apuseni Mountains was always a center for uprisings, which turned very fast if was social at the beginings, to a national reasons. I sugest to read about Sofronie monk religious in 1760, the uprising from Campeni from 1782, Horea's uprising from 1784 and the list may go on.

Here are some quotes if needed:

"la anul 1727, cand Romanii de aici [Abrud - note of 21inf] s-au rasculat in contra Ungurilor, au constituit un consiliu comunal romanesc ..." - Ion Russu Abrudeanu, Motii, calvarul unui popor eroic, dar nedreptatit.

The program of Horea's uprising, early november 1784:
1. Poporul român să fie liber de iobăgie.
2. Nobilime să nu mai fie, iar nobilii să plătească dări întocmai ca şi poporul ţăran.
3. Românii să capete arme şi să fie militari, deci înarmare naţională.
4. Pământul nobililor să se împartă la ţărani.

Same source as above. Please compare it with the french revolution programe from 1789.

But these are all off topic, as the topic is the "unique" case of romanians vs romanians in ww1

The only ways to escape serfdom in 1784 (in Transylvania) was to become a priest (greek-catholic) or become a grenze. What would you have chosen if illiterate?

One of the key figures that comes from the top of my head is general Iosif iacobici, who was the Chief of the General Staff and then CO of the 4th Army during late 1941, until he got into a conflict with Antonescu and was sidelined. Another illustrious name is general Ioan Boieriu (or Boeriu), Knight of the Maria Theresa Order.

Other examples are the two WW2 German generals in the Romanian Army: Hugo Schwab and Karl Schmidt. During the the inter-war, general Arthur Phelps also served in the Romanian Army, before resigning and joining the pro-Nazi organizations in Transylvania.

There was an article in Magazin istoric several years ago about the KuK officers integrated into the Romanian Army after the war. Try to find it for more details.

which organisation did he join in Transsylvania? i only read that Phleps joined the 5th SS after leaving the romanian army.

The ethnic ties between Transylvanians, Wallachians and Moldavians were well known at the time. Here's an example:

"The Transylvanians together with the Moldavians and the Wallachians are the ancient Dacians whom the Romans so greatly feared..." [Italian historian Lazaro Soranzo, 1595]

It wasn't a myth. For example, contemporary historian Richard Knolles clearly perceived Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova to be "border countries, the bastions of this part of Christianity and very exposed to the fury of our common enemy". I guess he was imagining things.

The ethnic ties between Transylvanians, Wallachians and Moldavians were well known at the time. Here's an example:

"The Transylvanians together with the Moldavians and the Wallachians are the ancient Dacians whom the Romans so greatly feared..." [Italian historian Lazaro Soranzo, 1595]

I don't know what the Italian author you quoted meant by 'Transylvanians', but certainly Rumanian were only one of the four major ethnic groups (if we count the HUngarians and Seklers separately), and were again certainly in minority at the end of the XVIth Century, the date your quote refers to.

I could not find a source yet for the ethnic composition of Transylvania for that time period, but at the end of the XVth Century, based on estimations, it looked like this:
Magyars 200 000 47%
Rumanians 100 000 24%
Saxons 70 000 16%
Seklers 55 000 13%
Total: approx. 425 000
[Source: Mályusz Elemér: A magyarság és a nemzetiségek Mohács elıtt. = Magyar Mővelıdéstörténet. Bp. é.n. II. 123–124.]

A century later, due to the relative peaceful era, the total number of population rose to aprox. 700 000 - again based on estimates.
[Source:Bakács István: A török hódoltság korának népessége. = Magyarország történeti demográfiája. Bp. 1963. 135–137]
Taking the above figures as starting point, Rumanians were still in clear minority, although probably raising percentage-wise.

So, Imp., what 'ethnic ties' is your quote actually referring to? Unless, of course, if all these four nations were descendants of Dacians and Romans....

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 12, 2010 09:08 pm

What is important in my view is that he points to the common ancestry of the people living in the three different principalities. And common ancestry is the basis of ethnicity, along with common language, religion etc. The fact that not all of the Transylvanians shared or adhered to that common ancestry is clear and good to point out however I don't think it disputes in any way the importance of Soranzo's statement.

I dont want to start again a ping-pong discussion, but figures above about population ethnicity are hard to believe if compared with the next centuries evolution of figures, even considering natality, infantile mortality, natural migration, wars, natural disasters as famine etc. for all ethnicities. For romanians and saxons the figures seems too low, comparing with XVII century and XIX century.

In 1564 only in Arad and Zarand shires (comitate, megye) were 55.000 people, without nobles. Most of this population was romanian.

Source: Traian Mager, Monografia tinutului Halmagiului, 1935.

I'll look for other sources for comparison.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 13, 2010 04:44 am

21 inf., there is no point for further estimated statistics on the ethnic composition of the people inhabiting Transylvania at that particular time frame - that was not the goal.

My point was addressed to Imp., showing the ethnical diversity of "Transylvanians" and how his quote is either taken out of context or manipulated (what I suspect), or that Italian traveller strangely met only Rumanians during his trip (if he ever set his foot on that land) - less than a quarter of Transylvania's population at that time.
Imp. took the note, case closed (from my side).

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Coincidentally, the ethnic diversity of Transylvania is shown on this very forum, too - over four centuries after that time period! Me, I consider myself a Transylvanian, as probably you too, 21 inf., and possible Dead-Cat as well (although he might regard himself rather as a Banater...).

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 13, 2010 07:05 am