1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

There is a detailed article (in Hungarian) on Transindex.ro, which I found objective and to the point:
http://itthon.transindex.ro/?cikk=11100
Please read it as many of your questions have answers, and, if possible, post a synopsis here for those who cannot read it.

Gen. Dénes

Well, I readed the whole article with great interess and atention and I found it full of inadvertencies, not to say heavier words. The guy who wrote it had to read considerably more on the subject of hungarian revolution, I mean the parts regarding the involvement in events of other nations than hungarians.

In the case of romanians the author of the article shows a great dose of lack of knowledge, on one side, and on the other side, he make some alegations unsustained with the slightest prove.

The first case is when the author calls Avram Iancu a servant of Vienese Court, who stabbed hungarian revolution on the back, causing it's failure. Well, Avram Iancu had a limited political role in the period the author says, cos he himself was under the authority of Romanian National Council who was ordering him what to do. The role of Avram Iancu went significant and independent only after Sibiu felt in the hand of hungarian army and RNC had to flee to Wallachia. So, the acusation that Avram Iancu was austrian instrument has no basis. If one want to point the "head" of romanian revolution, he had to point the RNC, who was the political representant of romanian revolutionars.

The author didnt convinced me with the statement that romanians from Hungary and Transylvania joined in great number and by free will or enthusiasm the hungarian cause. He just says it, without any proof.

Also, he says that at the begining romanians recognised the union of Transylvania with Hungary, which is an afirmation or insuficient researched by him, or bad intented. Romanians never agreed such an union, in fact they oposed it on their all national gatherings. The romanian delegation sent together with saxon delegation to transylvanian Diet from Cluj in 1848 had the mision to state the oposition of romanians to such a union. When the saxon delegation said in plenary the same statement oposing union, they were threatened by hungarian delegates, put outside the building by force, together with romanian delegation, force to take hungarian flags in hands and to cry out loud that they agree with the union. Romanian delegation did the same, fearing for their lives. This is not my personal afirmation, it is what I studied in numerous romanian history books, having as primary source the declaration of the romanian delegates who were there on that time.

Actually, on Blaj, romanians stated that they want the union with "the country", by country meaning Romania, even if on that time Romania didnt existed yet. Romanian grenzinfanterie regiments refused to change austrian flags with hungarian ones and joined romanian revolutionaries, training Legion XII and XIII from romanian Landsturm (militia).

There are plenty of examples on the article which maximise the bad intentions of nationalities (recognised or not) from Hungary and Transylvania and minimise the faults of hungarian side. If one wants to debate on them, I am very open to discuss the matters, on request, on this topic, which I consider growing interesantly and with benefits, even if not every post brings a both side agreement, at least yet.

So, unfortunatelly, with all my kindness and good intention to listen the other side too, I have to say that the article is unreliable, at best.

PS: the coments posted on this article are far more pertinent and well documented (and they are written also by hungarians).

This post has been edited by 21 inf on March 21, 2010 02:42 pm

Thank you, 21 inf, you put it better than I can say about it.

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

i fail to see the point. is this an accusation that Petöfi chose to be a hungrian?

Did I acused Petofi about that??

The prefects (generals) of romanian Landsturm Legions:

I Legion "Blasiana" (or "Blajeana") - Axente Sever http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Axente_Sever

II Legion "Auraria Gemina" - Avram Iancu http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Avram_Iancu

III Legion "de Campie" - Vasile Macariu Moldovan http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Vasile_Macariu_Moldovan

V Legion "de Campie" - Vasile Turcu (KIA) http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Vasile_Turcu

VI Legion "Submontana" - Petru Dobra (KIA) http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Vasile_Turcu

XII Legion "Mures" - Constantin Romanu Vivu (KIA) http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Constantin_Romanu_Vivu

Legion "Zarandului" - Ioan Buteanu (KIA) http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Ioan_Buteanu, eventually Mihai Andreica

Legion "Auraria et Salinae" (or "Ariesului") - Simion Balint http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Simion_Balint

Legion "Campestre" (or "de Campie") - Nicolae Vladutiu http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Simion_Balint

Legion "de Cluj" - Alexandru Batraneanu (KIA) http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Simion_Balint, followed by Florian Micas, eventually Ioan Botianu http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Ioan_Bo%C5%A3ianu

Legion "Abrudului" - Mihai Andreica http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Mihai_Andreica

Legion "Sebesului" - Dionisiu Pop Martian http://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Dionis...op_Mar%C5%A3ian

Legion "Erbacina" - Juniu Eliseu Armatu

Legion "Sibiului" - Ioan Jovian Brad, eventually Ioan Brote

Legion "Hunedoarei" - Nicolae Solomon

Legion "Tara Barsei si a Fagarasului" - Ioan Brad Lemeny, Ioan Jovian Brad

Note that the number of legions never came oficially, it is only an atempt to number them acording to some books consulted, other may show diferent numerotation. These are the projected legions, not all of them went reality due to fightings which leaded to the ocupation of their recruiting areas. Some legions went to reality and were very active, as it was Legion Auraria Gemina, Auraria et Salinae, Campestre etc.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on March 27, 2010 04:51 am

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

I also fail to see the point.
Both Kossuth and Petofi were born in the Kingdom of Hungary, and as far as I know they did not change their religions, either. Therefore, they were no "Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa."

Gen. Dénes

And, from DEX: RENEGÁT, -Ă, renegați, -te, s.m. și f. Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa. – Din fr. renégat, germ. Renegat.

Or, in english, renegade.

I also fail to see the point.
Both Kossuth and Petofi were born in the Kingdom of Hungary, and as far as I know they did not change their religions, either. Therefore, they were no "Persoană care s-a înstrăinat, s-a lepădat de patria, de credința sa."

Gen. Dénes

Well, if so, good for them.

i still don't see the point. if that "renegade" thing is not an accusation, what is the point of explaining the definition?

Well, for some people may count, even not for some.

Here http://www.archive.org/stream/okmnytrmagya...e/n132/mode/1up can be read, in an impresive collection of documents regarding 1848 revolution from diferent part of Eastern Europe, Hungary and Transylvania, the details about Romanian National Gathering from Blaj, at page 132 (search facility) or page 123 (on original, on book). At the pointed link can be readed what was declared by romanians at their national gathering, and it is clear as the sun that they oposed openly to the union of Transylvania with Hungary. Other points about romanian revolutionary programe are very clear also.

In this set of documents it is also very interesting to be read the declaration of serbs toward romanians, for it's friendly content.

Most of documents are in hungarian language in this volume, very few are in german and covers the period of early 1848-late 1849 and the subjects are the hungarians, austrians, romanians, croats, italians, serbs and others.

If you read carefully and properly understand the hard-to-read archaic Hungarian language used by the important source you mentioned, it is clear that the 16-point official petition (see page 128 and 129, footnote) drafted after the Blaj Meeting calls for equality among all nations living in Transylvania, among others, and something what we would nowadays call local/regional autonomy.
As for the union of Transylvania with Hungary, the petition calls in point 16 (page 129, bottom) for this topic to be discussed only after the Rumanian representatives in the Parliament are elected and present at the discussions. That's all.
There is no mention in the official petition that the Transylvanian Rumanians did not want the Union (with Hungary), only that they want to be part of the discussions, presumably to obtain as many rights as possible, including equal rights with the Hungarians and Saxons, and autonomy in the regions where they were the majority.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 04, 2010 12:21 pm

Well, first of all, let's concentrate on the main body of text, which presents the facts as they were, being original documents, not at the foot notes, which represents the opinion of editor. Let's not evade the main informations.

So, at page 116, regarding the first day of Romanian National Gathering from Blaj from 3/15 may, it is said on point 1b:

A roman nemzet nyilatkozott, hogy orokre allando hive akar maradni a felseges ausztriai csaszarnak, Erdely Nagy-Fejedelmek, es a felseges ausztriai haznak.

Translation into english:

The romanian nation declares, that wants to remain forever subject of austrian emperor, of Transylvania Great Princeps (principe in romanian) and the House of Austria.

So, this is the first declaration against union of Transylvania with Hungary, which was stated at the last point of hungarian revolutionary declaration from 15 march 1848.

No one said that generally romanians didnt wanted the same as all revolutionary nations from Europe (page 117, point 1 of the declaration): liberty, equality, fraternity. But particulary, romanians had some demands, in order that this principles to be real: the first of all, recognition as a nation, because back in 1848 they were not recognised as a nation in Transylvania. So, point 1c from the same first RNG from Blaj says (page 116):

A roman nemzet onallo nemzetnek nyilatkoztatta magat,...

Translation into english:

Romanian nation declares itself as being independent,...

The oath of romanians at first RNG from Blaj is toward austrian emperor, not to Hungary, so it is clear that romanians didnt adhered to the hungarian proclamed union of Transylvania with Hungary. The oath says that romanians will respect all the other nations from Transylvania and that they will not atack the other nations, but also romanians will not tolerate to be bad treated by others.

The flags of Austria (black and yellow) and romanian (blue, red and white) (sic!) were present at this RNG.

The union of Transylvania with Hungary was put aside from discussion at the second day of RNG from Blaj, 4/16 may 1848, because it was considered that such a subject can be discussed only when romanians will be properly represented in the goverment, because only in the parliament can be righteously decided on this matter (page 117, first paragraph, second sentence).

One can just imagine that when romanians acceded to parliament acording to percentage of population that they represented in Transylvania, they could opose even the austrians, not only the hungarians. Because if so, they had the majority as being in 1848 about 1,5 milion romanians, about 600.000 hungarians and 200.000 saxons in Transylvania. Hungarian nobles who were in parliament knew very well that this romanians wanted and feared the worse, of loosing power of decision in Transylvania. Union with Hungary would bring romanians in minority, unable to be represented as a numerical powerfull nation (at that time, in 1848, they were not recognised as nation, so they had no word in political matters), demolishing any hope to be represented acordingly.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on April 04, 2010 11:45 am

Being back on the subject of recognition or not of union with Hungary, I believe that it is clear that putting an oath to austrian house and declared themselfes as austrian subjects, romanians were against union. Otherwise, they would quickly declare that they agree with union, isnt it?

Romanians, yes, stated that in 1848 that Transylvania should be a form of statal organisation as Switzerland, based on federation, but rejected the union (anyway, excepting a few counties, romanians were in huge majority; in another hungarian document of the work cited, hungarians state that in most counties they were in numerical inferiority, from 1 hungarian to 3 non-hungarian in Superior Alba county, to 1:7, 1:25, 1:35, 1:45 in other counties (later example from Fagaras county - megye - comitat) and these are only a few examples cited by this volume. Giving the small numbers of saxons, by non-hungarian were considered most presumably romanians, though this is not directly expressed, but couldnt be otherwise in lack of other nations, insignifiant as numbers in Transylvania. The few counties with hungarian majority were mainly the sekler ones and a few others.

Were in the hungarian revolutionary programe (not necesarily the one from 15 march 1848, can be later) are the romanians recognised as a nation (as they asked) and a principle of organisation of Transylvania as in Switzerland, ensuring a large democracy on the principles of liberty, equalty and fraternity? How can be equal with others, when one is not recognised at the same statute as the other?

This post has been edited by 21 inf on April 04, 2010 11:41 am