Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (2) 1 [2]   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> 1878 Romania
Imperialist
Posted: July 30, 2005 09:42 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 02:49 AM)
Excerpt from the history book, 'Istoria României', by Barbulescu, Deletant, Hitchins, Papacostea & Teodor (Corint, Bucharest, 2002), p. 306:
QUOTE
Termenul "România", care fusese frecvent, dar neoficial, folosit in anii '50 [the 1850s, that is], cu referire la un stat unitar, situat intre Marea Neagra si Muntii Carpati, a devenit acum [on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani] numele curent al Principatelor Unite si, incepind din 1862, a fost folosit in actele oficiale ale tarii.

Would someone care to translate it, as I currently don't have the time? Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

QUOTE
The term "Romania", which was used frequently but unofficially in the 1850s, and referring to a unitary state between the Black Sea and the Carpathians now became ( on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani) the current name of the United Principalities and, starting with 1862 has been used in the official acts of the country.


Great info. The "alternative" schoolbook we used in the 12th grade was (maybe not surprisingly?) edited by ... Humanitas. No wonder its so unclear, I'd dare to say... wink.gif

Yes, it seems that there is the confusion between the internal use and of "Romania" and the external recognition.
Though internally the term started to be used officially, it seems it still had to be recognised externally.
And apparently that recognition came to coincide with the full gain of independence.


Here is what historian Dan Berindei said about it in his introduction to "Independenta Romaniei. Documente" :

QUOTE
In aceste conditii si cand intre Serbia si Romania se ajunsese chiar la incheierea unei aliante [1868] nu este de mirare ca la Belgrad nu va exista nici o opozitie fata de hotararea guvernului de la Bucuresti de a cere celorlalte state sa-i recunoasca denumirea de Romania, in timp ce Bismarck va conditiona recunoasterea de ctare Prusia a acestei denumiri, a unei decoratii romanesti si a monedei nationale de o acceptare prealabila din partea Portii otomane.
  La randul ei, Austro-Ungaria, dispusa de a accepta noua denumire, s-a grabit insa a pune si ea conditia baterii monedelor romanesti cu semnul de vasalitate pretins de Turcia.


take care



--------------------
I
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: August 01, 2005 05:37 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4350
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 04:49 AM)
Excerpt from the history book, 'Istoria României', by Barbulescu, Deletant, Hitchins, Papacostea & Teodor (Corint, Bucharest, 2002), p. 306:
QUOTE
Termenul "România", care fusese frecvent, dar neoficial, folosit in anii '50 [the 1850s, that is], cu referire la un stat unitar, situat intre Marea Neagra si Muntii Carpati, a devenit acum [on Febr. 9/21, 1862, with the abolishment of the Central Committee of Focsani] numele curent al Principatelor Unite si, incepind din 1862, a fost folosit in actele oficiale ale tarii.

Would someone care to translate it, as I currently don't have the time? Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

The term of Romania, which had been frequently used in the 1850s, but unofficially, in the context of a state spreading from the Black Sea to the Carpathians, had become now the current name of the United Principalities and, starting from 1862, it was used in the official country's documents.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Carol I
Posted: August 14, 2005 07:55 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 30 2005, 12:04 AM)
p.s. but to be entirely exact, the Constitution of 1866 does name the United Romanian Principalities, the state of "Romania".
  I think claiming that to be a safe date for the official "start" of Romania's existence would be OK, with or without independence.

I would still say that 1862 is the year when the name 'Romania' started to be used officially (see Dénes' post).
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 14, 2005 08:13 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Carol I @ Aug 14 2005, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 30 2005, 12:04 AM)
p.s. but to be entirely exact, the Constitution of 1866 does name the United Romanian Principalities, the state of "Romania".
  I think claiming that to be a safe date for the official "start" of Romania's existence would be OK, with or without independence.

I would still say that 1862 is the year when the name 'Romania' started to be used officially (see Dénes' post).

Yes, I saw last night an interesting show on OTV with very important historians.
Mircea Dogaru said something about December 1861 relating to the name of Romania.

I have agreed with Denes, as he had the better info on this.
I mentioned the 1866 Constitution as the best and safest proof, until further contributions, that the term Romania did afterall appear before 1877/78.

Anyways, I'm surprised I did not find that info in the history school manual I still have since the 12th grade.
Maybe we should open a new discussion about the state of Romanian education in another section.
At least with romanian history part. From what I know in communist times the history of Romania was taught in 2 school years, the 11th and the 12th grade. Now it has been reduced to the 12th grade, and obviously the level of info has been scaled down only to the essential. Also history is not compulsory at the BAC, at least the last time I checked, a couple of years ago. So students simply ignored it and focused on their selected subjects for BAC. This combined with increasingly weaker teachers (with not enough stature to impose themselves on unruly students in the last year of highschool) is a disaster for teaching romanian history.
Apart from those who actually apply to the History Faculty, I think the next generation is pretty history-chalanged.

take care


--------------------
I
PM
Top
Carol I
Posted: August 14, 2005 09:18 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 30 2005, 04:03 AM)
QUOTE (Carol I @ Jul 30 2005, 04:33 AM)
The first stamps that carried the name 'Romania' were issued in 1872.

Here is what I found on this issue:
QUOTE
The first stamps of Romania were issued at 26 June 1862

This does not contradict what I have said. Indeed, the first stamps of Romania were issued on 26 June 1862, but - not unusual for that time - they did not have any inscription to identify the issuer (see below).

user posted image
Source: histoirepostale.net

The inscription Poşta Română (Romanian Post) appeared on the stamps issued on 21 January 1865 with the effigy of Prince Cuza.

user posted image
Source: S.P.Stamps

The inscription was maintained through the first years of Prince Carol I reign, being replaced by 'Romania' only on 18 October 1872.

user posted image
Source: Romanian Philatelic Federation

It should also be mentioned that the first stamps issued in Romania were in fact the 'Auroch Heads' put into circulation by the postal administration of the Principality of Moldavia on 22 July 1858. The second issue of 'Auroch Heads' (of 1 Novemver 1858) were sold up until 5 May 1862, so it may truly be said that they were Romanian stamps as well.

user posted image
Source: Romanian Philatelic Federation
PM
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (2) 1 [2]  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0092 ]   [ 15 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]