Causes of the 1916 defeat on the Romanian fronts

QUOTE

BTW, how would Carol I. attack directly Austria, bypassing Hungary?

Since Transylvania was ceded by Austria to Hungary only in 1867, attacking Austria in Transylvania in 1866 did not require a bypassing of Hungary.

If you really want to split hairs, (geographic) Transylvania was a region integral part of the Hungarian Kingdom, administered by the Austrians from 1711 to 1848 and 1849 to 1867. So, if Rumania would had attacked in 1866, it would had been an attack de jure against Austria and de facto against Hungary.

The main difficulty was how to get those weapons in Romania, not the calibre.

About Cadrilater, even if not annexed, Bulgaria would have still been an enemy. First because of her "contractual" obligations with the Central Powers, and secondly because our intervention in the 2nd Balkan War caused her to lose many other territories besided the Cadrilater.

However, I havent seen addressed on this thread the decision taken to halt the offensive in Transylvania and the subsequent confusions in administering the battle on 2 fronts.
Or the mistake in the initial formulation of the operational plan.

Also, an interesting point would be to know the complexity (length and covering area) of the railway infrastructure in Romania at that time, so as to see the possibilities it had to quickly transport troops between the 2 fronts. This info could also shed some light on the decisions taken.

I remember reading some time ago that the 1916 railway infrastructure of Romania was deemed inadequate for the (then) modern warfare for several reasons. On one hand it was said to be quite distant from the frontline, thus not allowing a rapid deployment of forces. On the other hand it did not have any backup or reserve capabilities and hence once a line was taken by the enemy, it was no longer possible to communicate by railway with the area it serviced.

Well, here are the main railways of the period:



Notice that Silistra is not linked, or there may be an unmentioned small line to it... (?)

Also there is another line towards Severin. With this in mind its very interesting to see the back and forth shuffle from the Transylvanian to the Dobrogea front. I'm just wondering how effective and welcomed were those shuffles. I'll look into it when I have more time for this subject.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 19, 2005 08:41 am

Here is a fragment from The Times History of the War describing the Romanian railways in 1916:

Rumanian POWs captured by the Bulgarians.

Gen. Dénes

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that Romania was badly defeated in 1916 because:

1) Negotiations for its entry into the war dragged on for so long that the key moment when it might have had maximum impact - at the height of the Russian Brusilov offensive, Verdun and the Somme - was lost.

2) The Romanian Army was poorly led and inexperienced compared with all its opponents, who had had four years (Bulgarians, Turks) and two years (Austro-Hungarians, Germans) of recent campaign experience.

3) Romania's military infrastructure could not sustain its own over-expanded army and so the country was incapable of supporting a long war without Allied support.

By the time of Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz the following year the Romanian Army was much more competitive.

Cheers,

Sid.

How long were the borders of 1916 Romania with its Central Power neighbours actually, I've read on WARCHRON that it was 1440 km in total, The Western Front was about 700 km long by comparison.

Hi DPA,

I don't know how long the frontier was, but as a disadvantage it works both ways.

Romania's force densities may look low by comparison with the Western Front, but they were much higher than those of either the Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian forces initially opposing them. The excessively long front to be covered in Romania affected both sides, but the more experienced Central Powers proved better able to adapt to it.

Cheers,

Sid.

I don't have the numbers at hand now, but, from memory, that seems to be just about right.

It is true that the Central Powers with their combat experience used the Romanian terrain better than the Romanians themselves.

Also their tactics and small arms and Artillery were initially better.

How is the setting for the poll supposed to function?
The sum of all options should be 100%.
Just try to add [46.15%] + [23.08%] + [15.38%] + [7.69%] + [92.31%] ...

... then divide the individual fractions to their sum and there you are.

It's bug from the latest forum upgrade.