WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Romania in the Second Balkan War

Posted by: Kosmo December 21, 2005 07:45 am

I'm interested in this campaign, but I can find very little info about it.
1. Why did Romania fight against Bulgaria? To take ground to defend Bucharest and Mangalia like I. Antonescu said? To fight the will of the Central Powers like Iorga said? Who made the call and what were his reasons? Any diplomatic talks before the war? Why it was not used another moment to fight Bulgaria like 1885?
2. What was the O.B. of romanian army (division level) and how was deployed.
3. How the campaign unfold
4. Any lessons learned? Despite no serious oposition it was far from a succes.

TY

Posted by: Imperialist December 21, 2005 06:04 pm

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 21 2005, 07:45 AM)

What did Iorga mean by fighting the will of the Central Powers? Romania was part of the Triple Alliance. German intervention detered Austria from giving assistance to Bulgaria.
There was no reason to fight Bulgaria in 1885. Bulgaria was smaller and she was in fact attacked by Serbia, while in 1913 Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece and she had gains after the 1st Balkan War.
Why did Romania fight? Some say balance of power considerations, others territorial ambitions.

p.s. What do you mean you can find very little info? You mean books, articles, or internet pages?

take care

Posted by: Kosmo December 22, 2005 07:43 am

Austria did not like Serbia to much and hated to see her size grow. So, they wanted Bulgaria to take Macedonia and they were willing to go to war for that, but the germans thought different and forced them to give up. Anyway the germans did not want to see Bulgaria defetead so they wanted Romania to stay neutral.
The Balcanic Wars were a serious diplomatic defeat for the Triple Alliance having the friendly Turkey and Bulgaria defetead.
If Romania had claims on Cadrilater she could use them in 1885 when Bulgaria broke the treaty from the Berlin Congress of 1878 by taking Eastern Rumelia. An angry Russia withdraw all her officers from the bulgarian army and Serbia went to war against Bulgaria, but the campaign was halfhearted and Serbia was defetead.
Bulgaria was right to be angry because after the Frist Balkanic War because Serbia and Greece ignored her and divided Macedonia between them despite the fact that Bulgaria did most of the fighting against the ottomans.

PS First internet pages, second books.
I am!

Posted by: Imperialist December 22, 2005 10:02 am

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 22 2005, 07:43 AM)

No, in my view, the Germans did not want to see the Triple Alliance broken. If Austria-Hungary would have fought allied with Bulgaria, and Romania against Bulgaria, then Austria-Hungary would have been at war with Romania, though both part of the same alliance.
Turkey did use the Second Balkan War for its own gains -- they recovered the Adrianople region from Bulgaria and maintained their foothold in Europe.

p.s. well , I see you did find some info afterall, judging from your post

take care

Posted by: Kosmo December 23, 2005 09:22 am

German did put to much trust in the Triple Alliance.
No major power wanted another major power involved in the Balkans. For Austria to go to war for Bulgaria would have been a german disaster as it will have to face Italy, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and maybe France and Britain.

p.s. I need more, much more info, I'm an info junkie

Posted by: Agarici December 23, 2005 09:37 am

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 21 2005, 07:45 AM)

4. Any lessons learned? Despite no serious oposition it was far from a succes.

And where did you get that from? Despite the forces involved by Romania, it was a clear success. The peace treaty signed at Bucharest was saluted by the international press as an example of equilibrium in the area, the Romanian army mobilized surprisingly fast and was the better armed among all the combatants (the only one to possess modern machine-guns, the Krupp model 1904 rapid fire field cannons, the Danube monitors, the individual medical kits for the soldiers); also, airplanes from the Air Observation Corps were used, at only two years distance from the time when Italians used them, for the first time, in the war with Turkey. The only major enemy for the Romanian army was the plague epidemics from the Bulgarian territories, which took somehow by surprise the medical corps.

Posted by: Kosmo December 23, 2005 10:10 am

@ Agarici
From The Memories of Argetoianu who served as a medical officer.
He says that no bulgarian oposition was met by his division (from Oltenia), that the cavalry division that was speeding towards Sophia was blowing the bridges behind her, that the airplanes and automobiles were used repeatedly to tell the troops to stop the advance, food supplies were short and cholera decimated the troops because the medical staff was poorly trained, officers and soldiers did not obey prevention measures and the medical supplies were very small including something for womens period

, but nothing usefull.
Ionel Bratianu led the romanian troops in Silistra, despite the fact he was only a volunteer, in Teddy Roosvelt style.
I don't know how true are this allegations, but is obvious that much more loses occured because of diseases than fighting.

Posted by: Imperialist December 23, 2005 10:37 am

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 21 2005, 07:45 AM)

2. What was the O.B. of romanian army (division level) and how was deployed.
3. How the campaign unfold

The Romanian forces were organised in 2 groups:

Main Operations Army
- 4 Army Corps (1 to 4)
- 8 active divisions and 2 reserve
- 2 Cavalry Divisions

MOA was concentrated between the Jiu and Olt rivers.

Dobrogea Corps
- 5th Army Corps
- Divisions 9 and 10
- 3rd Division as reserve

OOB:

1st Army Corps - Bechet
4th Army Corps - Corabia
2nd Army Corps - Islaz
3rd Army Corps - Turnu Magurele
5th Army Corps - Medgidia

Map of OOB and operations:

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=12/35604511614.jpg&s=x12

source for info and map: Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman

Posted by: Kosmo December 23, 2005 10:46 am

Thank you very much for the OB and map. Very useful.

On the map it looks like the sangeac of Novi Pazar became part of Serbia after the First Balkanic War. I'm not sure about the faith of this piece of land, but I believed the austrians give it up when anexing Bosnia Hertzegovina to Serbia. It looks like I was wrong and was held by the ottomans.

Posted by: Victor December 23, 2005 01:42 pm

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 21 2005, 09:45 AM)

1. Why did Romania fight against Bulgaria? To take ground to defend Bucharest and Mangalia like I. Antonescu said? To fight the will of the Central Powers like Iorga said? Who made the call and what were his reasons? Any diplomatic talks before the war? Why it was not used another moment to fight Bulgaria like 1885?

The annexation of southern Dobruja in 1913 was not done because of imperialistic desires. Initially, after the 1st Balkan War, Bulgaria was forced by the Great Powers through the St. Petersburg Protocol (9 May 1913) to cede the fortress of Silistra to Romania, which it did not respect, although it had signed it. The idea was to keep the balance of forces in the Balkan Peninsula. The Romanian intervention in the 2nd Balkan War was following intense pressure from the Kaiser, who feared the Bulgarian hegemony might be installed in the Balkans if they defeated their former allies Serbia and Greece and annexed more land. This put an end to a war, which could have generated an earlier WWI and which brought a lot of horrors to the area. Ethnic cleansing was not invented by Milosevic you know. Generally after Bulgarian, Greek, Serb or Turkish troops left a town, there was a massacre. The Carnegie Commission published a report in 1914 on the atrocities carried out during the war. The Romanian troops were only guilty of several rapes (which have already been dealt with) and the bombing of a museum by mistake.

Posted by: Dénes December 23, 2005 03:12 pm

QUOTE (Agarici @ Dec 23 2005, 03:37 PM)

airplanes from the Air Observation Corps were used, at only two years distance from the time when Italians used them, for the first time, in the war with Turkey.

Based on Bulgarian sources, their aviation was at least at pair with the Rumanian one in 1913. For example, they used aerial bombs, while the Rumanians did not.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos03 December 23, 2005 03:19 pm

Actually the Bulgarian army also had 75mm Krupp cannons. The Romanian army captured several batteries that were installed in the Turtucaia fortress and used against their previous owners in 1916.

Posted by: Imperialist December 23, 2005 04:21 pm

Romanian soldiers:

user posted image

source of the photos and more info about Balkan Wars (including Bulgarian air force): http://www.elgrancapitan.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=61051

Posted by: Imperialist December 23, 2005 04:31 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ Dec 23 2005, 01:42 PM)

And how was Silistra crucial to the balance of power between Romania and Bulgaria?

Posted by: sid guttridge December 23, 2005 04:54 pm

Hi Imp,

Victor didn't actually write "crucial", so he doesn't have to defend it.

Romania, then much smaller than it is today, had not taken part in the First Balkan War because it had no border with Turkey. By contrast Bulgaria had taken the central role, had been phenomenally successful and had made very large gains that changed the ballance of power in the Balkans. This was presumably why Silistra was regarded as a balance-of-power issue.

It should be remembered when discussing Southern Dobrogea that Turks were then the single largest population group there. It was not, therefore, definitively ethnic Bulgarian territory at the time. In an admittedly rather convoluted way, territorial gains by Romania in Southern Dobrogea may be regarded as indirect gains off the Turks even more than they were directly off the Bulgarians.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Victor December 23, 2005 05:12 pm

At the time of the St. Petersburg Protocol, it was custumary in international relations to act according to the compensation principle. Bulgaria had increased in size following the 1st Balkan War and this threatened the ballance of power in the region. Thus, according to the Great Powers, Romania was entitled to compensations. These were agreed upon between Romanian and Bulgarian delegates: Silistra and a piece of land of the northern part of the Cadrilater.

Silistra was an important port on the Danube, which had ample permanent fortifications around it. Remember that at the time war was still thought in the terms of of the late 19th century conflicts. Silistra could be used as a pin in the back of Bulgaria. It could have been a good base for operations South of the Danube in case of conflict.

Some lessons were learned from this odd campaign and in the autumn of 1913, the Parliament granted extra funds for the reorganization and reequipment of the army, but it was too little too late and not all the proposed measures were implemented until August 1916. Also, the easyness with which victory was achieved created an feeling of overconfidence in the some of the Romanian high-ranking officers, with the disastrous results of 1916.

Posted by: Victor December 23, 2005 05:16 pm

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 23 2005, 12:10 PM)

I don't know how true are this allegations, but is obvious that much more loses occured because of diseases than fighting.

According to the official statistics, out of 9,052 men who fell ill with cholera, 1,964 died. That is 21.6%

Posted by: Agarici December 25, 2005 04:03 am

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Dec 23 2005, 03:19 PM)

Actually the Bulgarian army also had 75mm Krupp cannons. The Romanian army captured several batteries that were installed in the Turtucaia fortress and used against their previous owners in 1916.

Dragos, Romania imported the first Krupp 75 mm cannons for its army as early as in 1868 (bronze-made). I was not referring to Krupp 75 mm cannons in general nor to fortifications guns (as those you mentioned could have been) but to the model 1904 rapid-firing Krupp cannon, which use smokeless gunpowder and was an improved model of the rapid-firing Krupp model 1899, the latter being the standard field gun of the German army in WW1. Now I don't know if Bulgaria had any of those. In the period, in Romania the gun was known as "tunul roman de 75 mm cu tragere rapida" (the Romanian 75 mm raid-firing cannon) because of the modifications Krupp manufacturer had to do to its initial specifications, following the requests of a Romanian technical commission.

Posted by: Agarici December 25, 2005 05:11 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Dec 23 2005, 05:12 PM)

Some lessons were learned from this odd campaign and in the autumn of 1913, the Parliament granted extra funds for the reorganization and reequipment of the army, but it was too little too late and not all the proposed measures were implemented until August 1916.

I think you’re wrong. Actually the funds were granted in the end of 1912, before the war, following the increasing tensions between Bulgaria and Romania and Bulgaria and its former allies. In 17/30 December 1912 the parliament voted an extraordinary credit worth 151 millions Lei, over 80 millions being used for buying armament: over 200.000 Mannlicher model 1893 6,5 mm rifles, 50.000 Steyr model 1912 9 mm pistols, 130 machine-guns (probably Maxim 6,5 mm and/or Schwarzlose 8 mm), 36 batteries of 75 mm and 105 mm model 1912 Krupp rapid-firing cannons and various quantities of equipment (14 Marconi telegraphy stations, among others) and ammunitions. Also during the hostilities, another (much) smaller credit was voted, to cover the army necessities in the campaign: approx. 10 millions Lei, form which 9 millions for armament.

Since there were no special funds granted by the Parliament during Autumn 1913 (after the war ended) you were probably referring to the increase of the army budget for the year 1913-1914, voted during the debates for the general budget; indeed there was a small increase (approx. 7,5 millions Lei) - not at all impressive comparing to the previous sums, no big scale measures planned. And the total figure of the army budget for 1913-1914 was around 82 millions, hence the relevance of the credit from December 1912. New supplementary sums for the reorganization and reequipment of the army will be voted only after the beginning of WW1.

Source: Milea, Pascu, Ceauşescu (ed.) Istoria militară a poporului Român, Bucharest, Editura Militară, 1987, vol. V.

Posted by: Victor December 25, 2005 06:34 am

The information came from Mihai Macuc, Pe frontul celui de-al doilea razboi balcanic (1913), Dosarele istoriei no. 5/2002

Posted by: Kosmo January 04, 2006 07:57 am

Something interesting in romanian about Craiova treaty at
http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi2000/current1/mi26.htm

Posted by: ANDI January 05, 2006 02:45 pm

Kosmo, you can also find history fact about the 1913 campaign in the first volume of Kiritescu's " Istoria razboiului de reintregire".
He writes (along with a small description of the events and the conclusions of this campaign), about the poor equipment of the troops (the rifle sling was actually just a tied rope, the bread was carried toghether with the cartridges, etc..) and also about cholera victims.

Posted by: Lysimachus September 07, 2006 11:55 am

Would it be possible for Imperialism (the user's name) to post this map again? I missed it at the time and now the link doesn't work anymore

Map of OOB and operations:

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=12/35604511614.jpg&s=x12

source for info and map: Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman

Thank you !!!!!!!!

Posted by: Imperialist October 06, 2006 03:17 pm

QUOTE (Lysimachus @ September 07, 2006 11:55 am)

Would it be possible for Imperialism (the user's name) to post this map again? I missed it at the time and now the link doesn't work anymore

I will soon do it Lysimachus

take care

Posted by: Florin October 13, 2006 03:22 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 23, 2005 10:12 am)

QUOTE (Agarici @ Dec 23 2005, 03:37 PM)

airplanes from the Air Observation Corps were used, at only two years distance from the time when Italians used them, for the first time, in the war with Turkey.

Based on Bulgarian sources, their aviation was at least at pair with the Rumanian one in 1913. For example, they used aerial bombs, while the Rumanians did not.

Gen. Dénes

This does not mean the Romanians could not do the same. They just did not want to do this.
A selection from this link:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=30

Lieutenant Capşa N. explores in flight, at an altitude of 2600 meters, the Araba, Konach and Sarandi gorges. He was gliding with his airplane, marked with our tricolor, above the Bulgarian capital. He dropped, instead of bombs, a manifesto with the regards of the Romanian soldiers for the inhabitants of the city of Sofia.
Also some nice photos in
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=0

Posted by: Corswandt December 04, 2006 02:56 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 23, 2005 10:37 am)

What was the composition of these army corps? I suppose it wasn't the same as it was later on in 1916. The list you present suggests that the I Corps included the 1st and 2nd Divisions, the II Corps the 3rd and 4th Divisions, the V Corps the 9th and 10th Divisions and so on.

And was the organisation of the infantry divisions the same as it was in 1916 (three brigades of two regiments each plus a light infantry regiment of two battalions)?

I thank you in advance for any info you can provide me on this.

Posted by: Imperialist December 05, 2006 11:24 pm

QUOTE (Corswandt @ December 04, 2006 02:56 pm)

First of all I think I noticed a small error in my post you quoted. The Dobrogea Corps had as reserve the 3rd reserve division, not the 3rd division.

Each army corps had 2 divisions. Each division had 2 infantry brigades of 2 regiments each, and an artillery brigade made up of 2 artillery regiments. I dont know about any light infantry regiment.

take care

Posted by: Corswandt December 06, 2006 04:04 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 05, 2006 11:24 pm)

Thanks for your reply.

So the order of battle would go something like:

Main Operations Army
I Corps (1, 2 Divs)
II Corps (3, 4 Divs)
III Corps (5, 6 Divs)
IV Corps (7, 8 Divs)
1, 2 Cvl Div
+ 2 reserve divs somewhere in here

Dobrogea Corps
V Corps (9, 10 Divs)
3 Reserve Div

I read somewhere that there were a total of 5 reserve divs (possibly with one assigned to each of the Army Corps?), but the list above accounts only for 3.

Posted by: rededmond March 18, 2007 11:35 pm

who wants some pictures with romanian soldiers in second balkanic war
user posted image

Uniforms of the romanian army in le petit journal from the 1913 capaing
user posted image

Romanian military horse drinking in Bulgaria
user posted image

Bulgarian prisoniers interogated by romanian oficers
user posted image

the pasing of the artilery over a romanian ponton bridge
user posted image

romanian army entering sistovarat
user posted image

romanian army pasing the danube
user posted image

romanian army in bulgaria (1913) infantry halt
user posted image

the camp of a romanian army division

Posted by: Mina88 March 12, 2012 05:22 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 23, 2005 10:37 am)

QUOTE (Kosmo @ Dec 21 2005, 07:45 AM)

2. What was the O.B. of romanian army (division level) and how was deployed.
3. How the campaign unfold

Hello can you please tell me names of all the commanders of the army and the corps which fought in Second Balkan War. I tried to find this book which you used as a source but I couldn't find it anywhere.

Posted by: Florin March 15, 2012 01:56 am

I do not know if the following is true, but at some point in my life I either heard it or read it: The Bulgarians had their weaponry bought from the British, while their enemies had their weapons bought from Germany.
Until the intervention of Romania the Bulgarian armies were doing quite well in the Second Balkan War, against all their combined enemies, and from here a political pressure from Germany toward Romania to "do something".

It you remember from the memoirs wrote by George Toparceanu regarding the days when he was war prisoner, his Bulgarian guardians reminded him that they were "stabbed in the back" in 1913, and they joked that all left to face the Romanians were women and children. However, they did not have a big grudge against Romanians, telling them that the Turks (their ally in that moment

) were still their worst enemy.

Posted by: Mina88 March 15, 2012 04:29 pm

QUOTE (Florin @ March 15, 2012 01:56 am)

) were still their worst enemy.

Bulgarian army had austrian Mannlicher models M1880/90 i M1895, Mosin-Nagant M1891 and Berdan II M1870 which were imported from Russian Empire.

As for Romania involvement in SBW:they wanted to achieve their goal which was to occupy southern Dobruja which they did with V corps while the Main Army's task was to enter bulgarian capital city.

Bulgaria was succesfull in SBW but it also had some defeats so it can't be said that they would won it if Romania hadn't entered the war.

I believe that German emperor himself stopped romanian progress into Bulgaria but I don't know how.

Posted by: Petre March 15, 2012 06:36 pm

QUOTE (Mina88 @ March 15, 2012 04:29 pm)

[I believe that German emperor himself stopped romanian progress into Bulgaria but I don't know how.

From Internet :
(...)
When the Romanian army closed in on Sofia, Bulgaria asked Russia to arbitrate. The Ottoman forces that invaded Eastern Thrace (12 July) without meeting Bulgarian resistance were already in Edirne being unwilling to stop their advance. To help Bulgaria repulse the rapid Ottoman advance in Thrace, Russia threatened to attack the Ottoman Empire through the Caucasus, and send its Black Sea Fleet to Constantinople; this caused Britain to intervene.

Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:26 am

QUOTE (Petre @ March 15, 2012 06:36 pm)

QUOTE (Mina88 @ March 15, 2012 04:29 pm)

[I believe that German emperor himself stopped romanian progress into Bulgaria but I don't know how.

what internet site are you qouting?I've got my information from military encyclopedia

Posted by: Petre March 16, 2012 09:22 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War

Many time ago, I had heard something like this from some old people: a messenger came to the Romanian commanding general and transmitted him the russian request to stop...

Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 04:41 pm

QUOTE (Petre @ March 16, 2012 09:22 am)

Well I don't consider wikipedia as a major source of information..it can be used ny high school students but I found that there are many misinterpretations of events so I decided not to take everything from wikipedia as a serious source...

There is a book written by Richard C Hall titled The Balkan Wars:prelude to first world war - it is a very good book about Balkan wars

Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 04:43 pm

can somebody help me with this book Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman? where can it be bought?or can it be downloaded from the internet??please...

Posted by: Dénes March 16, 2012 06:40 pm

QUOTE (Mina88 @ March 16, 2012 10:41 pm)

I fully agree with you. I also had the same experience.

Gen. Dénes