1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

Aidan and Denes: we are (including me) probably right and wrong in the same time. As I said above, all depends on the author and also on the reader.

Let's make an agreement, if you like: in my opinion, Hungarians fight in 1848/49 for what they believed was right; Romanians did the same, they fight for what they believe was right for them. Can we have respect for each other and name simpy the events "Hungarian revolution" and "Romanian revolution"? In this manner, no one is ofended by being tagged as "rebel", "insurgent" or other names.

Please tell me your opinion on this.

Atfer that, we can talk about anything one would like (but please, not about massacres on each side. Both Romanians and Hungarians killed inocent civilians, which is very regretable and make no honour for each side. I consider that killing civilians with cold blood is extremelly condamnable and those who did that were not humans, being them Romanians or Hungarians). Let's keep this topic clean of any heated spirits and talk about military history, not massacre history. Please.

I have called civil war because from legal point of view after the union of Transylvania with Hungary all Transylvanians have become subjected to the Hungarian government! Is it not so?
21inf, I think it is a good starting point for a civilized discussion! I can agree to that! I am glad that here are recognized also the major mistakes committed by the Romanian side!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on January 20, 2013 12:43 pm

Aidan, depends on how one regard the events: until 3rd of October 1848 one can say that yes, from all points of view (Hungarian, Romanian, Austrian), Transylvania was legally part of Hungary, even if Romanians were not agree with the union. From 3rd of October 1848, opinions would differ, depends on the reader: those siting on Hungarian side would consider the after 3rd of October the Hungarian rules were still valid, while a posible Romanian or Austrian reader may consider that Hungarian rule was not valid anymore, because of the decision od Austrian Court to ban the Hungarian revolution.

Also, if we adopt the name of civil war, here will be also a diference depending of the reader: a posible Hungarian reader might consider that it was civil war because the Hungarian rule was still valid, so Romanian and Hungarians were all Hungarian subjects, while a posible Romanian or Austrian reader might consider that it was a civil war because Romanians and Hungarians were all ... Austrian subjects. That's why I proposed simply "Hungarian revolution" and "Romanian revolution". Of course one can disagree my proposal...and name it whatever he/she want or like. Qui prodest?

When I speak of the Romanian camp, I meant Avram Iancu and National Council of Sibiu followers, and not all Romanians had chosen the same path!

I agree that points of view differ, depending on the viewer's perspective on events! From my point of view, based on what I read so far, the name of civil war of what happend in Transylvania in 1848/49 is the correct one! And as for the previous events to October 1848 I have said before that both Romanian and Hungarian nations from Transylvania had their Revolutions up to a point!

Aidan, what Avram Iancu and RNC from Sibiu choosed, was their choice. This is how they see the things, good or bad. What other Romanians choose (I supose you refer to those from Banat and Crişana) was their choice. Their leaders made the choice good or bad for them.

LE: if you want to use the designation of "civil war" based on the reason that after 3rd of October 1848 the Hungarian rule was still valid, I will respect and understand your point of view.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 20, 2013 12:59 pm

I agree with you, my specification (not all Romans followed the same path) came in the idea to establish that some Romanians embraced (albeit partial) the cause of the Hungarian Revolution! To be historically correct, not for my pleasure!

Yes, Aidan, to be historically corect, some Romanians joined the Hungarian revolution. They were mainly from today Crişana and partially from today Romanian Banat. We dont know today how the majority of Romanians from Crişana saw the Hungarian revolution, as we dont have documents. What we know is that Romanian leaders from Pest and Crişana were on Hungarian side.

In Banat the opinions were split. Some Romanians were on the Hungarian side, some Romanians were on the side of Romanians from Transylvania. Historically speaking, most of the Romanians from Banat were on the side of Romanians from Transylvania, while most of the Romanian leaders from Crişana were on the Hungarian side.

LE: In Transylvania, on the Hungarian side, was the Romanian bishop Lemeny, who was at one point one of the main characters of the Romanian National Gathering from Blaj. Because of that he was later arested by Austrians.

LE: also, Romanians from Banat and Crişana were agaist Serbs (in the same time the ones from Banat were on Romanian side and those from Crişana were on Hungarian side, as I said above).

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 20, 2013 01:14 pm

When I speak about some Romanians, I mean some Romanians from Banat, Crisana and Maramures, not the entire Romanian population from these areas! I know that in these areas there were Romanians who supported the insurgency or the Austrian Imperial troops! But there were others who volunteered in Nemzetőrség or Honvédség!

I am sorry, when I wrote "insurgency" I wanted to say Transylvanian revolutionaries camp led by National Council from Sibiu and Avram Iancu and his lieutenants!

Yes, in those areas some Romanians fight on the Hungarian side. Some were volunteers, some not. We dont know why those who were volunteers joined the Hungarian side. Some probably believed in the aims of the Hungarian revolution. Some probably for the payment. Some for the oportunity of looting, who knows...

Anyway, there is no secret that some Romanians from that areas fight in the Hungarian Honvedseg and some volunteered for it. The somehow "famous" Romanian Pomuţ from Maramureş voluntarily joined the Hungarian army as officer in Banat area. He is now somehow apreciated, even if he fight on the other side.

That's why I propuse to avoid the terms of "rebels" or "insurgent": depending on the reader, a Romanian would be ofenced to see Avram Iancu called "insurgent", as well a Hungarian reader would be ofended to read about Kossuth being named "insurgent".

Let's accept that all (Hungarians and Romanians) considered themselves revolutionary (each for his own purpose) and no one get's offended. It is ok for you this proposal, that everyone was revolutionary for his own ideas/country/interests?

Yes, of course therefore I apologized and also in order not to block our dialogue!

Aidan Zea, I must inform you, with sadness, that, on the episode you described above, the end was bloody! I don't know if you know but either the military commanders have not listened to Kossuth, either he changed later his peaceful view! Fact is that on 2 November 1848 forces from the military camp in Baia Mare (7650 men strong) occupied by fighting the Jibou area, having been reported fightings with romanian militia organized by Border Guard Lieutenant Dambul (Border Guard Regiment of Nasaud). The hungarian forces led by Major Toth Agoston (who led the 31 Honved Battalion) and government Commissioner Decsey Laszlo were composed by 700 honveds (trained men, with uniform, armed with rifles and bayonets) and 3000 national guards (armed with spears, war scythes, axes, pitchforks) were attacked in Rona village which they had to storm, and after they drove "the rebels" from the village, they burned it, after they shot a lot of civilians they found there! Two honveds were wounded in battle, and major baron Englofstein was also hit, but was able to continue. After the occupation of Jibou they had "cleaned up" of rebels the Somes valley villages but not forwarded for Dej knowing that there are stationed imperial troops.
Source: Raports of sub-commissioner Balint and prime-notary Kis Laszlo from Zalau to National Defence Committee of Pest from 2 and 14 November 1848 published by Silviu Dragomir -Studii... vol.III

Andreas thanks for providing me arguments on what I said! As shown from what you wrote some Romanian militia was directly raized by imperial officers of Romanian nationality and used against Hungarians! It is natural that under these conditions the Hungarian Government should respond in force, defending the revolution and the state threatened by the insurgents! Anyone would have done the same!