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

> King Mihai
prj453
Posted: October 29, 2003 06:14 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 131
Joined: October 29, 2003



Hello,

I am seeking information on King Mihai's background with the Royal Romanian Army. As of now, I have the following information on the ranks that he held:

Corporal - 1930
Sergeant - 193?
2nd Lieutenant - 1937
General of Division - 1940
Marshal of Romania - 1941

Does anyone have more specific information with regard to the ranks? Also, was he the colonel-in-chief or honorary colonel of any of the regiments in the Royal Romanian Army? Thank you for your help!

-Patrick
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: October 31, 2003 01:45 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1860
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE
Hello,

I am seeking information on King Mihai's background with the Royal Romanian Army. As of now, I have the following information on the ranks that he held:

...........
Marshal of Romania - 1941
.....................................


Hi,

It is for the first time when I read about King Mihai as "Marshall of Romania".

Well, two things may result from here:
1. He was and I did not know.
2. He wasn't. I am very confident about this second option.

Florin
PM
Top
prj453
Posted: October 31, 2003 02:19 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 131
Joined: October 29, 2003



Hello Florin,

I am somewhat confident that King Mihai held this rank. According to the 1942 edition of the Almanach de Gotha, he was created a marshal in 1942. If you click on the link below, you can see a photo of the King with the insignia visible on his shoulder:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/files/1135_..._1035820264.jpg

The link below leads to a photo of the King in the uniform of the highest rank in the navy:

http://www.cs.kent.edu/~amarcus/Mihai/acce...orii/mihai2.jpg

-Patrick
PM
Top
prj453
Posted: October 31, 2003 02:20 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 131
Joined: October 29, 2003



I am sorry--the first link above does not work. Try this instead:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.p...?t=9893&start=0

-Patrick
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 31, 2003 02:48 am
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4341
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE
It is for the first time when I read about King Mihai as \"Marshall of Romania\".

Well, two things may result from here:
1. He was and I did not know.
2. He wasn't. I am very confident about this second option.

King Michael I was undoubtedly a Marshall. He received his rank shortly after Antonescu, in 1941.
Somewhere I have the exact date, I must look for it.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted: October 31, 2003 03:06 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



Florin wrote :

QUOTE
2. He wasn't. I am very confident about this second option.


The former monarch was a marshal, but only on paper. He was made marshal of the airforce, symbolically as any monarch. The thing is that he had no military/political skills.

Best regards,

Getu'
PMUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: October 31, 2003 07:16 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4328
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



King Mihai I was a marshal, and air marshal and an admiral.
I do not know if he held the nominal command of a regiment, like his father and grandmother did.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: October 31, 2003 09:32 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2394
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
King Mihai I was a marshal, and air marshal and an admiral.
I do not know if he held the nominal command of a regiment, like his father and grandmother did.


His grandmother commanded a regiment ? :shock: :lol: :lol:
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: October 31, 2003 01:53 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4328
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Queen Maria was the nominal CO of the 4th Rosiori Regiment, which she occasionally led at parades.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Florin
Posted: October 31, 2003 09:23 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1860
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE
.....................
It is for the first time when I read about King Mihai as \"Marshall of Romania\".

Well, two things may result from here:
.............
2. He wasn't. I am very confident about this second option.



Hello, all of you!

OK guys, I learned the lesson.
Usually it is good to be king. There is only one catch: When you are king and you become unemployed, it is pretty difficult to get another job in accordance with the resume. :)

Florin
PM
Top
prj453
Posted: November 01, 2003 12:45 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 131
Joined: October 29, 2003



According to the Almanach de Gotha, King Carol II was the honorary commander of the following units:

-Regiment Infanterie Gardă
-Regimentul 6 Gardă “Mihai Viteazu”
-Regimentul 32 Dorobanti “Mircea”
-1st Mountain Rifle Battalion
-1st Light Infantry Battalion
-Regiment Escortă [Royal Escort Regiment]
-Regiment 2 Artilerie Gardă [Guard Artillery]
-Divizion 1 Artilerie Călăreată [Mountain Artillery]
-Regiment 1 Grăniceri [Frontier Guards]
-Regiment 2 Grăniceri

I do not know whether or not King Mihai "inherited" any of these regiments when he came to the throne.
BTW, King Carol II was also the honorary commander of these foreign units:

-45th Infantry Regiment, Royal Yugoslav Army
-57th Infantry Regiment, Polish Army

Any corrections or additions are welcome!
-Patrick
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted: November 01, 2003 03:10 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 802
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



A couple of comments about the interesting points made in this thread:

1. Was the king theoretically the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces? I say "theoretically" because in practice and in reality Antonescu was the Army supreme commander. Still, if the king was officially the commander-in-chief, this would explain why he had to hold the highest military ranks in all branches of the armed forces.

2. IF there was no official reason for him to hold these "ranks", then in my humble opinion I find the whole thing distasteful. Officers dedicated and sacrificed their lives and families in order to even HOPE to become a ranking officer such as colonel or mj. general. And here comes a youngster (be it a king) who is marshall, Air marshall, and admiral in his twenties. A throne may be inherited, but shouldn't a military rank be awarded based on valor and experience?

3. This indirectly reminds me of pre-revolutionary France where just about any nobleman could BUY officer commissions and ministerial jobs. And we all know how it ended... :wink:

P.S. I'm not trying to bash the king. I'm sure he was (still is) a capable guy, but at his young age he could have stuck with being just a king. Just my opinion...
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: November 01, 2003 06:01 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4328
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Ofcourse the king was the theoretical chief of the armed forces. This was also during Carol I, Ferdinand I and Carol II. Keep in mind that the king represented an institution.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Florin
Posted: November 02, 2003 04:21 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1860
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE
.........
1.  Was the king theoretically the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces?  


QUOTE
Ofcourse the king was the theoretical chief of the armed forces. This was also during Carol I, Ferdinand I and Carol II.


Hi,

This makes easier to comprehend how the Romanian Army managed the confussion in the aftermath of August 23rd, about what position should take.

Florin
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: November 02, 2003 04:50 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1860
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE
......IF there was no official reason for him to hold these \"ranks\", then in my humble opinion I find the whole thing distasteful.  Officers dedicated and sacrificed their lives and families in order to even HOPE to become a ranking officer such as colonel or mj. general.  And here comes a youngster (be it a king) who is marshall, Air marshall, and admiral in his twenties.  A throne may be inherited, but shouldn't a military rank be awarded based on valor and experience?......


For God sake, you behave like you just discovered America!
It is the common practice in all regal families, including the British, in all times, including WWII and our days.
However, King George VI wanted to give some good example, so he put the young Elizabeth to drive a transport truck.
Also Churchill wanted to show a good example, and put his daughter to be servant at an anti-aircraft battery.
However, we should not forget that in late 1940 - late 1947 Mihai was the king, and not the son of the King.

QUOTE
3.  This indirectly reminds me of pre-revolutionary France where just about any nobleman could BUY officer commissions and ministerial jobs.  And we all know how it ended...  :wink:


It was worse. It was not about buying. Whatever bright and brave you could be, you could never become officer if you were not nobleman. You could never become high rank officer if you were not born high rank nobleman.

Napoleon was born in a family of small noblemen. They were at the lowest step in the ladder of the French nobility, but enough to make him accepted in the artilery school. You should not get me wrong: there were real tests, including written, but only the noblemen had the chance to compete for the positions.

In a France with no revolution, Napoleon could never rise above the Major rank. His nobility rank was too low.

QUOTE
P.S.  I'm not trying to bash the king.  I'm sure he was (still is) a capable guy..........


King Mihai had a natural skill in mechanics, and he liked to dismantle and re-combine internal combustion engines. The Germans knew about his passion, and made nice presents as fancy vehicles, as the tracked one shown in a real footage climbing the stairs of the Peles castle.

King Mihai gifts in mechanics helped him to survive in exile. The guy was not as lucky as his father, who could leave Romania with a whole railway train, filled at his discretion.

QUOTE
.......but at his young age  he could have stuck with being just a king..........


I would say that excepting the very important moment of August 23rd, when his name gave credibility to the coupe d'etait, Mihai had stuck in being just a king

About age... Alexander the Great started to conquer the known world at 23. At 32, he was ruling it. Well, Mihai was not Alexander the Great. Which is not to be blamed, as nobody else was. Alexander was the son of the great king Filip the 2nd of Macedonia, so he inherited his kingdom.

Now let me look to the other guy, closer by birth to our humble position.
Napoleon became Brigade General at 24, emperor at 35, ruler of the world at 39. Considering his beginnings, he was brighter than Alexander the Great.

Florin
PM
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: 0.0912 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]