1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

I learned some minutes ago that Kemeny Farkas was also from militia. He was comander of hungarian national guard from Turda, apointed as major, initially.

Indeed 21 inf,
I also found this information about baron Kemeny Farcas -that he was the commander of the militia troops from Turda, which in april 1849 consists of 3 militia companies and a cavalry squadron.

It is little know that, between defenders of fortress of Alba Iulia, were many Romanian soldiers, part of legion of Axente Sever, who were trapped inside by the aparition of Hungarian troops. This Romanians made many incursions outside the walls and fought bravelly, Austrians were not so eager to leave the protection of the strong walls of the fortress. Contrarywise, they were treated like second-hand allies.

Actually, the story of Axente Sever's troop in Alba Iulia fortress is a little bit diferent.

Axente Sever wasn't traped inside fortress when the hungarian siege corp arived. Actually he was at large and ordered to head toward Alba Iulia, but he disobeyed order and headed toward Sibiu, wich was threatened by hungarian troops. On his way, learning that Sibiu felt to hungarian troops, he changed direction to aproach mountains.

He asisted from mountains the fortress in 2 cases starting atacks to release the presure that hungarian siege corp put on austrian garison.

On a third atack he managed to enter fortress and join his troop to defenders. Being in the fortress part of his troop manned the fortress together with austrian units and part (the bulk) served the fortress as workers, mainly cuting the so much needed grass for the livestock from fortress, often under enemy fire. This important job of gathering food for animals was recognised by austrian comanders. After a quite short period, having broken rifles repaired, lances replaced with rifles and clothed with new clothes, Axente Sever's troop was asked to leave fortress under the reasons that there it is not enough food for the garison to sustain also romanian militia.

Axente Sever initiated a night atack to surge thru hungarian encirclement and managed to reach mountains safely. Only a romanian militia column of 80 men was unable to surge thru enemy lines and returned with few loses in the fortress were they stayed until siege was raised.

In the ranks of austrian regulars was a number of romanian units. At the begining of fightings for Alba Iulia the romanian border regiment (I dont rem if it was the one from Bistrita or the one from Sibiu) was sent out from the fortress because disobeyed some orders repeteadly. The romanian border regiment from Banat was also fighting as garison in Alba Iulia fortress and they performed very well during siege.

The austrians were not eager to leave the protection of the walls because the garison was short on men. At the begining of the siege the austrian comander decided to defend only the inner part of the fortification due to lack of enough manpower. The reserve echelon of garison was very small and any loses were very hard to replace. Most of garison was engaged in defending the walls and during the siege illnesses broke into the rank of garison. Even the artilery was not on the quota needed for a proper defense of the fortress. Austrian garison, including sometimes the romanian border regiment from Banat made some incursions in the city or in the surrounding, sometimes for counteratack hungarian army, sometimes for gathering food and construction wood. Romanians from Banat border regiment performed extremely well during these incursions.

Romanians from after 1848 and nowadays romanians wonder why austrian treated us with mistrust sometimes or as second-hand allies. We forget often or almost always that on the 3rd Blaj romanian national gathering the romanians proclaimed that wanted union with the country (Romania, even if it didnt existed yet). This fact is more important when it is added that Alexandru Ioan Cuza himself and colonel David Urs from romanian border regiment attended the same gathering were was given that proclamation. Most of romanian prefects from militia were living in Wallachia, even if they were transylvanians, returned in Transylvania for the revolution.

Austrians didnt forget the union intentions of romanians and acted acordingly, during and after 1848-1849 revolution. After all, it was their empire on the stake and they didnt cared about romanians, hungarians, serbs or other nationalities from the empire. They cared about hungarians only in 1867 when being weakened, needed a serious strong ally from the interior of the empire.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on February 06, 2010 07:41 pm

As far as I know, the hungarian national guard from Turda was only intentioned to have 3 infantry companies and one cavalry company, as it was stated on 30 March 1848 when was declared the intention to raise a national guard from the city.

In May 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda had only 3 infantry companies and no cavalry company. At the end of April 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda received 200 flint rifles and in midle May received 6000 rounds of ammo. On the expense of the city 300 lances (lanci) were made.

At the end of July 1848 the hungarian national guard from Turda was 684 men strong, armed with 200 bayonet rifles and 184 hunting rifles. An aditional sum of money was given to make more lances.

The hungarian national guard from Turda disarmed in middle September 1848 one austrian company from Carol Ferdinand regiment and with the captured rifles, it armed itself.

Lately, at some unmentioned date, the hungarian national guard from Turda raised her ranks to 1080 men, having as comander the same Kemeny Farkas baron. These men were armed with 400 bayonet rifles, 300 hunting rifles and 400 lances. They were organised in 4 infantry companies wich formed lately a batalion. From the suroundings of Turda an aditional militia force was raised, consisting on another 4 infantry companies of 300-600 men strong. No cavalry militia unit is mentioned to be raised.

Maybe some few cavalry men served together with infantry militia, but not as a unit, as in other hungarian national guards from Transylvania was the case, but this situation is not mentioned, thus being just a hypothesis of mine.

source: Közlemények by Süli Attila, A nemzetőrség szervezése Erdélyben
1848 nyarán és őszén

This post has been edited by 21 inf on February 06, 2010 07:59 pm

Thank you, 21 inf, about your info's.
I see you are very documented about these facts. What do you believe about the missed meeting between Avram Iancu and Franz Iosef, during his visit in Transylvania in 1852? There are many interpretions about it, Silviu Dragomir gave us one, but there are many historians who don't have a significant clue to explain it.

I dont know what S Dragomir said. Being with my roots from the same village with Avram Iancu, I can guess, as being a motz myself, why he didnt met the emperor in the mountains and why he refused the decorations. I am an amateur historian, not a profesionist one.

I personally dont think that Avram Iancu reasons for not meeting the emperor are very complicated. Actually, I believe that are quite extremelly simple. But one have to see again the statements of Avram Iancu after 1850. And not to be so sure that he was mad. Actually he was very normal, having just a mental depresion, wich is very different than insanity.

But as I said, maybe one has to be motz in order to feel and to think as a motz, as Avram Iancu was. And the reasons will surface alone, simple and basic, by themselfs. Even Avram Iancu's contemporans didnt understand him. Only few were those who understand that he was not mad and those who understand his deeds and words.

Can you post what S Dragomir said about the lost meeting?

About what said S Dragomir, I had his book, but he didn't gave us a sentence, just put the facts, let us judge by ourselvs.
I'm sure, very sure, that Avram Iancu wasn't mad. I can said he was very lucid until his death. And for this are many memories, many important men meet him short time until he died and they said he was very lucid. Maybe he pretends himself to be mad, just to be leaved alone, with his dissapointments.
I'll look in Silviu Dragomir book and I'll give you the references.

Despre asa zisa nebunie a lui Avram Iancu, citeste aici:

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2009-03-14&id=250521

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2009-10-03&id=259512

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=259511&data=2009-10-03

Veti afla mai multe despre teoria nebuniei lui Avram Iancu, o teza des intalnita printre adversarii sai. Citind asta, poate ii vom intelege mai indeaproape motivatiile.

Sorry, sooner I posted some commentaries in Romanian, and taked by the wave, I put the last one in same language.
The translate is (aprox):

About so called Avram Iancu's madness, read here:

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2009-03-14&id=250521

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=259511&data=2009-10-03

http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2009-10-03&id=259512

You'll find more about Avram Iancu's madness theory, one thesis often related by his adversaires. Reading this, maybe we will understand better his motivations.

Excuse me and thank you,

Contras

Well, the articles are quite good writen, without many misunderstandings, wich is odd for romanian nowaday press. But they dont give a final clear conclusion, just chating on the subject.

The story about Iancu's madness is not true and it never was. He had a major depresion episode, with recurencies. Insanity (or madness) have a totaly diferent clinical evolution. What was describes about Iancu shows a major depresion, one can find the simptoms in any psichiatry book.

About the reason not to meet austrian emperor, but this might be a long story, one have to see all the personality of Iancu to understand him and not to seek complicated answers.

Based on contemporan writings the following are usefull to be known about Iancu.

Iancu was second son of a motz peasant, Alisandru Iancu. His father had a better situation, having a state job, to guard the governamental forests, but still a peasant. Iancu went to school in his village, after that he was sent to higher schools in diferent cities from Transylvania, all of hungarian language and education. He never gave up his nationality and ortodox religion during school years, never forgeting that he is a poor motz and romanian.

At the outbreak of 1848 revolution he was 24 years old and he managed to became a lawyer. From the begining he distingueshed himself as being a fighter for romanian claimed rights, but also being a fair one.

At the outbreak of military events in october 1848 he was apointed as prefect of Auraria Gemina Legion and took part with all his legion at the march against Cluj city. From now on, his fair personality was to be shown and recognised and apreciated by either austrians (allies) and enemies (hungarians). During this march, in one village, a hungarian woman with a new born baby, came in tears to Avram Iancu, beging not to be killed by romanian militia. Her husband shot dead a romanian legionaire and he was instantly killed by other militia, who wanted now to kill also the family of the shooter. Iancu asked the woman if the baby is baptised or not and it was seen that was not. Then, Iancu told everybody that he will be the godfather of the baby and did so and no one dared to touch anymore on this hungarian lady and her child.

Being camped outsite Turda, a citisen of Turda came to Iancu and acused a romanian legionaire that this one stoled a fork (eating tool - furculita) from him. The price of the fork was ridiculous small, but Iancu sentenced to death the romanian legionaire because steeling from enemy civilians. Hungarians intervened at Iancu to forgive the romanian thieve cos the punishment was considered too hard for such a small offence. Eventually Iancu pardoned the life of that legionaire.

During all march from mountains to Cluj, Puchner writed that not even a single offence hapened to enemy civilians from romanians as long Iancu was present, because he mantained a high tough discipline and made a real diference on armed enemy and civilians who were not involved in the fightings.

Lately in 1848 and during 1849 it hapened that in some places romanians captured a lot of goods during fightings. In some atacks romanians captured important quantities of gold from mining offices. Being imperial belongings, Iancu put them aside, as a good austrian subject and returned the gold to austrian authorities at the end of the civil war. Iancu was often out of money, ammo and food, but he never touched imperial gold. In one case he even returned the imperial gold, during hostilities, to a austrian official who survived fightings, in order to be returned to the state. Eventually, that austrian oficial gave the gold to hungarian militia who spent it on buying rifles and ammo to be used against austrians and romanians.

From the begining of the revolution Iancu asked for romanian rights and the delegation sent in early 1848 to the austrian emperor claimed that rights. In particular Iancu asked that the forests to be given back to motzi, wich owned them since forever but were striped by their posesions in time. No clear answer came from the emperor, nor to the romanian delegation from 1848, neither lately when Iancu went to Wien after 1849.

In 15 december 1849 Avram Iancu was arested by austrian army in Halmagiu, in a day when romanians was gathered to the local fair. Being aware that Iancu was arested, motzi put presure on the austrian garison, threatening with total destruction and the soldiers set Iancu free imediately, claiming that it was a confusion and that they were looking for someone else. But Iancu said that the austrians knew very well who he was and that they had specific orders to bring him in. It was the first blow that Iancu received from austrians.

In february 1850 Iancu traveled at Wien with a romanian delegation to see the emperor. He was told by some people to borrow money for hiring some servants, a carriage and a lavish house, to clothe in very shiny clothes in order to make a good impresion to austrian oficials. He refused to do so, stating that he fought for romanian motzi rights and he has no reason to ask to be rewarded, it has to be understand that romanians are to be rewarded for fighting for the emperor.

In Wien Iancu was awarded with austrian medals who recognised the merits during war, but not one word was said about the claimed rights and forests. In this situation Iancu refused the decrations, stating again his claims for rights and forests. He was called once again to the wienese police station and handed the medals again. Again he firmly refused them and being so, he was asked to leave Wien in 24 hours. From now on his depresion episode will start.

He returned home sad that he was not rewarded with the rights and the forests, deeply hurt in his soul and with the understanding that he was only a tool for austrians during civil war.

In 1852 the friends of Avram Iancu managed to persuade the emperor's men to change the route of his transylvanian visit in order to pass thru Vidra de Sus, cos they hoped Iancu will meet finaly the emperor. All the preparations were made in this event and even Iancu was very involved in the preparations. In the last minutes before emperor's ariving Iancu dispeared and no one managed to find him to introduce him to the emperor. The emperor left Vidra de Sus empty handed, only to be asked few days later by Iancu to received him at Campeni, were he stayed for a short time. The emperor's guard drived off Iancu, cos he presented to the emperor's quartier very late at night. Again Iancu didnt met with the emperor.

After these events Iancu went to Zarand, leaving his home from Vidra de Sus. He lived in Zarand, wandering the mountains and the villages. One of my ancestors, being a child, aged 5 or 6 in 1852, used to feed Iancu when he came into his village and he never see Iancu as being a mad man.

Further arest will follow some years later, imprisonment in Sibiu, beatings from austrians in prison, deepening his depresion more. He never recovered after this last arest, but he was not mad, for sure.

My opinion is that the personality of Iancu drove him into depresion. He believed in his goals, the rights for romanians. He was a simple man, stuborn as the majority of the motzi, fair and with a high sense of equity. He failed to understand the mechanisms of state diplomacy, as he proved in his Wien journey. He was an excelent warior, but a poor diplomat. He couldnt see that what he gained in war had to gain also on diplomatic field, he couldnt understand why he should do so, when his deeds were clear to everybody.

That's why he went to a deep sadness wich drove him to a deep depresion, never to recover. Maybe he also realised that thousands of his people died following him in war, died in battle, from starvation or executed by enemy for no imediate results at the end. On the other hand, he acted corect to enemy during civil war, not alowing civilian or prisonier killings, lootings and revenge were he was present. So he wanted his reward without having to ask for it, as a fair compensation for his people loses during revolution.

Of course these are my amateur historian conclusions and others may agree or disagree them as well.

details on the subject here, romanian language http://www.darnick.com/halmagiu/sfarsitul.html

This post has been edited by 21 inf on February 07, 2010 06:17 am

21inf., first of all let me state clearly that I am not knowledgeable at all in the 1848/1849 revolution. I only read a few articles and studies related to this subject, both in Rumanian and Hungarian.

Based on what I've read, it seems to me the picture you painted about Avram Iancu is idealised and romanticised, highlighting only the good sides.

It is always a good practice for historians to consult sources of both (all) conflicting parties to have a more balanced picture.

After I read your posts, I checked the Hungarian version of Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia Britannica has no entry for him): http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avram_Iancu

Would you care to comment some of the charges against him that appear on that site (ie, the killing of thousands of unarmed Hungarians, incl. civilians, or about his madness/alcoholism - the topic of the last posts)?


[Source: Wikipedia]

Thanks,

Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 07, 2010 08:41 am

Yes, Denes, I can answer to your question, wich is pertinent and understandable giving the fact that you had the oportunity to consult other sources, too.

The most easily part is answering the alcoholism issue. It is true that Avram Iancu was seen drunk after his depresion started. During his drunkness he was not agresive and sometimes amazed the auditory how clear were his ideas when he answered questions from public. Some bad intentioned romanians gave Iancu to drink only to see him drunk and making him look silly. None of his biographers called him alcoholic, and no one avoided the alcohol subject.

Some hungarian historians tried to put the death of hundreds or thousands of hungarian civilians onto Iancu's back. Iancu was never oficially acused of murder or giving orders in this directions. Contrary, there are a lot of cases when he saved the life of hungarian civilians. Puchner general stated this fact in his declaration in late octomber 1848. During fightings in 1849 no hungarian civilian was killed where Iancu was present in person. He strictly forbided romanian militia to kill unarmed and noncombatant hungarian civilians and he was much respected, so romanian militia followed strictly his orders.

In Zlatna romanian militia acted without any previous plan. Couple of days earlier Abrud hungarian national guard was disarmed peacefully, Iancu being present and negociating the disarmament. All civilians were protected by his orders, both hungarian and romanian. Diferent unit from romanian militia entered Zlatna, inspired by Abrud events, without being ordered so. Both militia, hungarian and romanian, agreed to a truce waiting for negociations. Hungarian national guard (the hungarian source pointed in wikipedia says it was not armed) opened fire against romanian militia wich stood in the city's square preparing to eat. Some 6 or 7 romanians fell dead, the rest withdraw in haste. Regrouping, romanian landsturm charged the city and killed many of the now retreating hungarian militia. Also hungarian civilians felt during this assault. Hearing after one day what hapened to Zlatna, Iancu went to this city and stoped the killing. All surviving hungarian civilians were brought to Abrud, in order to be better protected by Avram Iancu's legion, wich was more disciplined than the others.

In Aiud the hungarian militia withdrawed without leaving it's weapons, as it was agreed. Unfortunately, some romanian comanders lost control of their men and the killing of hungarian unarmed civilians occured. It was a regretable incident, but Iancu was not present there and there were no people from his legion there. He was also not aware what was hapening in Aiud. Some prefects and tribuns were charged as guilty in this case and almost sure they were, cos in Aiud were killed inocent hungarian civilians. Some of the romanian comanders were imprisoned by austrian as punishment for the killing.

On the other vilages mentioned by hungarian wikipedia Iancu was never present and he didnt order or agreed the killing hapened there, of hungarian civilians. In some cases the killing of hungarian civilians ocured as "colateral damage" as they died during fightings, unintentionally killed, others were killed as revenge cos in some cases hungarian militia killed romanian inocent civilians as they were took some romanian vilages. Also in the ranks of romanian civilians killed were women, childrens, elders and other noncombatants.

In Abrud, after the first taking of the city by Hatvany, many hungarian civilians were killed after romanian militia entered the city, as revenge for romanian civilians killed by Hatvany's men. When Iancu entered city he tried to stop the killings and stop the fires set to destroy hungarian homes, but it was extremely hard to stop the mob's fury. Then Iancu called for the unit of Axente Sever, wich was extremelly well disciplined and the disaster stoped. Iancu took then all surviving hungarian civilians under his own protection.

From Rosia Montana also Iancu brought all surviving hungarian civilians in order to protect them for further killings and revenge from romanian part.

Iancu is atested as also taking care of hungarian military prisoners. At least one case is documented, a hungarian oficer who received money from the own pocket of Iancu in order to buy food for himself, for the romanian militia had no suplies to feed the prisoners. Iancu also was very angry on his troops for killing Ioan Dragos, the emisar of L. Kossuth after the taking of Abrud. Another killing wich Iancu mourned was the death of Vasvari Pal, an important hungarian revolutionary.

Far from trying to idealise the image of Iancu, he was probably one of the few romanian comanders who was intentionaly protecting hungarian civilians or prisoners. The others were indiferent or in some cases took revenge when oportunity apeared.

Iancu was a dreamer, he hate to fight and kill and it is very posible that this caracteristic of his personality drove him into deep depresion. One of his famous saying was that "between you and us (hungarians and romanians - my note) the sword can never decide".

I believe that this is a good quote from his saying to show that he didnt aproved or didnt took part of the massacres.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on February 07, 2010 12:43 pm

Dragos was killed by retaliation for hanging Ioan Buteanu and others.