| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Biographical Research > Field Marshall von Paulus's Romanian Wife |
| Posted by: Führerul September 15, 2003 06:41 pm |
| Heard a strange rumour that Von Paulus..the unfortunate Commander at Stalingrad was married to a Romanian Woman. Is this true? Who has more information?
About Paulus I know that after spending so many years in Russian captivity he eventually became sympathetic to communism ( :cry: they 're-educated' him)...and he eventually returned to Communist East Germany many years after the war where he died. Strangely he is burried on the other side of Germany now, in the south west, in a little town close to the Swiss Border. The most unfortunate General in history who lost his entire army.  :cry: :cry: |
| Posted by: Victor September 15, 2003 07:07 pm | ||
Technically he was a marshall. There are many contestants to the title of "most unfortunate". Publius Quinctilius Varus is my favorite. |
| Posted by: Dénes September 15, 2003 07:49 pm | ||
Some also question the 'von' in his name. I am not an expert, so I don't know the right answer. Dénes |
| Posted by: Führerul September 15, 2003 10:06 pm |
| Neither one of you answered the question regarding Frau Paulus, who was she, where she was from, and what became of her.. |
| Posted by: inahurry September 16, 2003 01:24 am |
| I heard the same thing, that she was born in Romania. Don't know anything else. |
| Posted by: C-2 September 16, 2003 10:39 am |
| I read also something about being born in Rom.but of German nationality. |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 16, 2003 03:43 pm |
| I know that Paulus had a "Romanian" wife... I do not remember her name, but she was part odf the Romanian aristocracy. It was very possible that she had phanariot origins. |
| Posted by: C-2 September 16, 2003 07:21 pm |
| In 1912 F.V.P married Elena Rosseti Solescu,sister of a regiment comrade.
They had 3 children. All I had to do was to ask my mother.... |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 16, 2003 09:42 pm |
| Rosseti... Aha... So I was right; she was of phanariot origin. :wink: |
| Posted by: C-2 September 17, 2003 12:18 pm |
| So am I !
And that's the way my wife calls me when she's angry..... |
| Posted by: inahurry September 17, 2003 03:49 pm | ||
Calls you how, "phanariot" ? Of course, if it's not very hush-hush internal affairs topic. |
| Posted by: Führerul September 17, 2003 04:42 pm | ||||
You call everyone a phanariot - even me! Should I remind you who looks like a phanariot? This Guy ->  !
Your mother is a Historian? :shock: Howcome she knows Paulus's Wife, the none of the Bookworms on this page could tell me who she was.. :? :evil: ![b][/b] |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 17, 2003 05:57 pm | ||||||
C-2 wrote :
 
Führerul wrote :
That's not true that I call everyone phanariot! But it is clear that names like Rosseti, Caragea or Mavrogheni are of phanariot and venetic origin.
Come on... Do not judge when you don't know. :wink: |
| Posted by: Victor September 17, 2003 07:47 pm | ||
Actually there were members of the Rosseti family that were very patriotic and loved their country. Just because they were not initially of Romanian blood (btw, neither were the first voivodes and domni :wink: ), does not mean they could not have become more Romanian than many others "escus". Caudiu is of German descent, among others, but I am not sure that from his mother's side. |
| Posted by: C-2 September 17, 2003 08:01 pm |
| Yes ,my Mother is an Istorian,but of anciant history...
She's related among others to the Mavrocordat family. We do not mention this much because....they were Fanariots.... More interesting is that I found lately that I'm related to a Italian General,Romulo Zorio,who fought in Abisinia before and during WW2 .As we all know without succes. |
| Posted by: Victor September 17, 2003 08:37 pm | ||
Maybe you could have done a quick Google search and would have found the answer for yourself. This was one of the first links: http://216.198.255.120/divisions/generals/biography_paulus.htm The name was Elena Rossetti Solescu. |
| Posted by: C-2 September 17, 2003 09:30 pm |
| Enything about royal families and staff like this I can ask my Mother without "kiling" my eyes in front of the pc. She may not cook too well,but there are no many "holes"in her knowledge about local aristocrasy.(I'm refering to the pre 1947 local aristocrasy).
I'll try the link. |
| Posted by: C-2 September 17, 2003 09:40 pm |
| Yes Victor,a concentrated and very complete biografy.
What no one can tell is if he was a real Von! I'm asking because Ribentrop wasn't ,also I belive Webber(the composer) also "got" the title later. |
| Posted by: Dénes September 17, 2003 09:43 pm | ||
Can she shed light to the question if fighter ace Nicolae Polizu had 'Micsunesti' also included in his full family name? I found both versions, but Micsunesti is mentioned only rarely. Dénes |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 17, 2003 10:25 pm | ||||
Victor wrote :
Many of those phanariots were finally "romanized" and integrated with the local aristocracy, forming the modern one that we knew during the inter-war period, and who was oftenly implicated in nasty bussiness (see the 20's and 30's corruption). If we are forced sometimes in a compromise with strangers, that does not mean that we must open the door at everyone... If we are what we are today and nothing else, an unitary culturaly and linguistically nation, that means that our ancestors knew pretty well their role, and preserved the true national character. Sorry, but I did not catch very well the thing with the first voivodes being of foreign origin... Please explain it... :wink:
Who is Claudiu, if I don't bother anyone? :oops: :? Best regards, Getu' |
| Posted by: Victor September 18, 2003 02:48 pm | ||||
The Basarabs were of Cuman origin.
C-2 |
| Posted by: Orok October 06, 2003 07:06 pm |
| Excuse my ignorance gentlemen, but what or who is a phanariot? Is that an English word?
Thanks. |
| Posted by: C-2 October 06, 2003 07:13 pm |
| Tha Phanariots were sort of a Clan of Greeks that ruled In parts of today Romania under the protection of the Turks.They weren't so bad but had put a lot of taxes on the people and were not popular at all.
Today to tell about someone that is a phanariot meens that his egoist,totalitarial etc.. :? Not so easy to explain to a "outsider" 
cheers! |
| Posted by: Orok October 06, 2003 07:15 pm |
I got the gist!  Thanks a lot! |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2003 03:08 am | ||
For Orok: In those days, Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca ("Tara Romaneasca" means "The Romanian Country") were under Turkish domination. However, this domination was not so close and so tight as that enjoyed by Hungary between 1526 - 1688. The rulers (the "Phanariots") were Christians, not a Turkish guy as in Hungary in 1526-1688. They had a kind of own army, built with foreign mercenaries, mostly Albanians. The key position were in the hands of local Romanian or Phanariot aristocrats. They had to obey the Turks, however. There were no mosques to worship the Muslim believes, as those built in Hungary between 1526 and 1688. So, in this condition of half independence - half Turkish province, the Ruler had to pay a lot of money to the Turks. The big problem was that in Constantinopol, the capital of the Turkish Empire, there were always OTHER Greek families lingering for the leadership of the Romanian kingdoms. They promised to the Turkish emperor bigger revenue than that got from the existing rulers :x So at any moment the existing Phanariot ruler had to offer bigger profits than the promised bid of his hungry competitiors. Also he had to built up his personal fortune very quickly , because he could be dethroned, and even beheaded, at any moment.
From here the taxes which made them so unpopular, taxes mentioned in the C-2's paragraph I quote above. Florin |
| Posted by: Orok October 07, 2003 12:45 pm |
| Thanks Florin, I found your explanation very informative. So the Phanariots were not really Greek but ethnically pure Romanians. And the part of Romania under Ottoman influnce was not really governed as an imperial province, as was part of Hungary, but rather functioned as a vassal which had to pay huge amount of tribute each year.
Thanks again Florin, great post! |
| Posted by: Dénes October 07, 2003 12:49 pm |
| The phanariots were Greek.
Here's a definition from Webster's 1913 Dictionary: "Definition: Pha*nar"i*ot, n. Also Phanariote Pha*nar"i*ote [NGr. ?, fr. Phanar. See {Phanar}.] One of the Greeks of Constantinople who after the Turkish conquest became powerful in clerical and other offices under Turkish patronage." Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor October 07, 2003 01:29 pm |
| The Phanotiote domni were established officially in 1711 in Moldavia (after the defeat of the Russian-Moldavian forces in the battle of Stanilesti) and in 1715 in Wallachia. I said officially, because some of the Phanariote rulers had been on the Moldavian throne as early as 1707 (Mihail Racovita, like the WWII general) or 1709 (Nicolae Mavrocordat), but with the rebellion attempt of Dimitrie Cantemir the Porte gave up using also local nobility and turned exclusively to the Greeks in Constantinople. Until then the habit of buying the throne was also in place since the 16th century, but the candidates were mainly Romanian/Romanianized nobles, who from time to time rebelled. So, in order to settle things down, the Greeks from the Phanar (neighborhood in Istanbul) were used.
In Wallachia, between 1715 and 1821 (when the reign of the last Phanariotes ended with a revolt) there were 38 reigns, some of the Phanariotes getting the throne 2 or 3 times. In Moldavia there were 35 reigns. Some of them ruled both in Moldavia and in Wallachia. Generally this period of Romanian history is probably one of the darkest. The few good things some of the Phanariotes done were the release of the serfs in 1746 in Wallachia and in 1749 in Moldavia, both by Constantin Mavrocordat. Many of the Phanariotes settled in Romania and mixed with the old local noble families and formed the 19th-20th century Romanian aristocracy, which, unlike what Geto-Dacul thinks, gave many good Romanians. |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2003 12:03 am | ||
Hi Orok, I read again my post you quote. I don't see any clue to support you in your statement that I declared the Phanariots "ethnically pure Romanians". I wrote that the aristocracy was local Romanian or Phanariot, but this is not equivalent with: Phanariots = ethnically pure Romanians. Sorry, this is your conclusion. I also said the Phanariots were Christians. Like the Romanians. Like the Hungarians. Like the Austrians... And if we consider the matter for the sake of accuracy, the Phanariots were Orthodox Christians. Like the Romanians. Like the Greeks. Like the Russians. Like the Serbians. Like the Bulgarians. Like the Armenians... But as C-2 and Victor mentioned (and my text was not in contradiction) the Phanariots were Greeks. Florin |
| Posted by: PanzerKing October 08, 2003 04:47 am |
| This is so interesting! I'm used to the old boring western history!
We learn a bit about Europe, but mainly how they paved the way for the U.S. to be born. |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul October 08, 2003 05:07 pm | ||
Victor wrote :
Aha... :? Very paradoxal... The worst scoundrels who plounged the principalities into one of the darkest period of the Romanians' history turned finally in many (too) good Romanians? The traitor turnes in the patriot? Under the Phanariots, Bucovina, Basarabia and Oltenia were abandonned to Austria and Russia... It does not remind you of the 1940 events? Getu' |
| Posted by: Orok October 08, 2003 05:36 pm | ||||
Hi Florin, If I misread your post I'm sorry! So they are Greek Romanians, am I right this time?  |
| Posted by: Dénes October 08, 2003 06:27 pm | ||
No, they were Greeks, who lived and ruled in Moldavia and Wallachia. 'Greek Romanians' is an oxymoron. You're either Greek, or Rumanian. Dénes |
| Posted by: Orok October 08, 2003 06:45 pm | ||||
Forgive me but I am very confused. Here in the US we have Greek Americans and Romanian Americans, why there couldn't be Greek Romanians? Was it possible for someone to be ehtnically Greek but legally a Romanian citizen at the same time? Can such a person be termed a Greek Romanian? And what happend to those Phanariots? They all went back to Greece or died out? If their descendants still live in Romania, have they given up their Greek language and culture heritage? If they still speek Greek can they be in all fairness be called Greek Romanians? Best Regards! |
| Posted by: Dénes October 08, 2003 07:47 pm | ||
One should never equate the situation in (North) America with Europe. This is a common error. In (North) America, ethnicity is only a minor detail, as everyone identifies himself/herself with the country he/she lives in and whose citizen is. In short: one country=one nation (except, perhaps, for the aboriginals/indians, who did not identify themselves with the "white people's state"). In Europe, as you may already know, ethnicity is the what's important, citizenship is secondary. In short, a certain (ethnic) nation's boundary not necessarily overlaps with the given country's boundary. That's why there are ethnic minorities all over Europe. Therefore, the phanariots were Greeks who were living (and ruling) in Moldavia and Wallachia, as I wrote. When their times came to dusk, most probably left the two aforementioned countries. The rest, due to their reduced number, probably slowly assimilated. Those who didn't, could be called 'ethnic Greeks from Rumania', not 'Greek Rumanians', which is an oxymoron, as I said. It's either Greek, or Rumanian, ethnically speaking. Others from Rumania might have a more precise answer to the current situation (not to be confused with the modern Communist Greeks, who left their country after W.W. 2 and settled in Rumania and all over WarPac Europe, due to their leftist views and subsequent persecution). Dénes |
| Posted by: Orok October 08, 2003 08:03 pm |
| Thanks Dénes, I see your logic but it is still a little bit hard for me to swallow!
BTW congratulations, you are now a full colonel! |
| Posted by: Dénes October 08, 2003 08:29 pm | ||
I fully understand your problem, especially if you were born and raised in the USA. In (North) America, there is a very powerful state-sponsored drive to assimilate everyone, otherwise the state(s) would not function properly. As for having hard time to swallow, why don't you try to take the "pill" with a shot (European size) of pálinka ™?
Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor October 09, 2003 04:07 am | ||||
First of all they were not traitors initially, since they were not Romanians, so they would have nothing to betray. Second of all, facts are not just black and white, so don't generalize. Take col. Radu R. Rosetti, who in 1918-19 fought like hell with gen. Franchet d'Esperey for the rights of the Romanians, which at that time the Entente was trying to overlook.
The Phanariots had practically no power. It was not they who gave away the land, but the Sultan. |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul October 09, 2003 02:26 pm | ||||||
Victor wrote :
Yes, you are right but some of them finally pretended to be Romanians!
In exchange, how many betrayed Romania? We cannot excuse prince Sturdza for what Rosetti did in WW1. For every "patriot" you can find 2-3 traitors. :wink:
Agree again... But I said under the reign of the Phanariots. The only thing they could do was to protest (when it was the case, like prince Ghica of Moldavia with Bucovina), but that was very limited. The conclusion to drawn here is that it is not good to be governed by strangers. |
| Posted by: Victor October 09, 2003 02:49 pm | ||
Well, feel free to give the 2-3 examples. |
| Posted by: inahurry October 09, 2003 10:03 pm |
| Let's not forget how the phanariots came to rule over Valahia and Moldova. They were meant to replace the local domni in the wider struggle between Ottoman empire and Russia & Austria. Local domni who could and did organize their countries better, including their armies which small as they may have been provided some more freedom of choices.
The last domn in Moldova before the phanariot era, Dimitrie Cantemir, fought alongside the Russians and Peter the Great (and lost) while Constantin Brancoveanul in Valahia suffered martyrdom in Constantinople being forced to watch how his 4 sons were beheaded before him because he refused to accept they change to Islam's faith. Some of the phanariot domni were acceptable but any comparison with the 17th century Romanian domni clearly shows Romanian countries would have fared better without the Greeks rule. |
| Posted by: Florin October 10, 2003 04:15 am | ||
Hi Denes, First of all, thank you a lot for explaining some things to Orok. Thus you spare the others to do it. The last phanariot who ruled Wallahia run from it in 1821, pushed out by the Tudor Vladimirescu revolution. In that moment the Ottoman Empire decided to don't continue with its policy of implementing phanariots in both Moldavia and Wallahia. There was certain political and cultural progress in the following decades, decades ending with the union of Wallahia with Moldavia. After that their progress in all aspects further accelerated. The Russian Empire interefered in both Romanian kingdoms, in 1830's. After one of the many Russian-Ottoman wars, the Russian armies, following the retreating Ottoman armies, occupied both kingdoms. Under the Russian general Kisseleff, a set of laws was issued: "Regulamentele Organice = The Organic Laws". It a progress for better. The Russian Empire was worse than the Western European states, but it was more advanced than the Ottoman Empire and its neighboring Balkan states. The fact that the phanariots did not have the chance to rule any more did not mean that those of them already established as aristocrats lost their wealth. They continued to own their lands and to enjoy their fortunes. Because of their money, they continued to play a role in the Romanian politics even after 1859, and even until WWI. After World War I, almost all BIG land owners in the new borders of Romania (phanariots or Romanians; also Hungarians in Transylvania) had their land given to the men or their families (widows and orphans) who fought as soldiers for Romania. Six million people became small land owners, and that was the reality who marked Romania in between wars. Later, in the early Communist years, these small land owners were the most bitter oponents to the new regime, and an enemy more resilient than the intellectuals. Returning to the phanariots, as they kept their fortunes after 1821, they had a word to say in the politics until and including World War I. Mrs. Irina Mavrocordat, a phanariot lady, was the wife of the Romanian ambassador to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I am talking about the last ambassador, until 1916. There are still many people bearing phanariot names in Romania, or abroad. Like me, for example. From my case I can tell you that many Romanians who worked for these rich phanariots borrowed their name in the everyday life. This happened in the XIXth century.
Regards, Florin |
| Posted by: Victor October 10, 2003 04:21 am | ||
Constantin Brancoveanu was not the last one. Stefan Cantacuzino was in 1715. |
| Posted by: inahurry October 10, 2003 09:16 pm |
| True, he was domn for a year or so. I always forget him because I always consider the impact of Brancoveanu's reign and his terrible end as a turning point in Romanian history. |