Field Marshall von Paulus's Romanian Wife

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

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.

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'

[Orok]

QUOTE

QUOTE 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! 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

Hi Florin,

If I misread your post I'm sorry! So they are Greek Romanians, am I right this time?

[Dénes]

QUOTE

So they are Greek Romanians, am I right this time?  :P

No, they were Greeks, who lived and ruled in Moldavia and Wallachia.
'Greek Romanians' is an oxymoron. You're either Greek, or Rumanian.

Dénes

[Orok]

QUOTE

QUOTE So they are Greek Romanians, am I right this time?  :P No, they were Greeks, who lived and ruled in Moldavia and Wallachia. 'Greek Romanians' is an oxymoron. You're either Greek, or Rumanian. Dénes

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!

[Dénes]

QUOTE

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?

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

[Orok]

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!

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Thanks Dénes, I see your logic but it is still a little bit hard for me to swallow!  :D

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

[Victor]

QUOTE

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?

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.

QUOTE

Under the Phanariots, Bucovina, Basarabia and Oltenia were abandonned to Austria and Russia... It does not remind you of the 1940 events? Getu'

The Phanariots had practically no power. It was not they who gave away the land, but the Sultan.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

First of all they were not traitors initially, since they were not Romanians, so they would have nothing to betray.

Yes, you are right but some of them finally pretended to be Romanians!

QUOTE

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.

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:

QUOTE

The Phanariots had practically no power. It was not they who gave away the land, but the Sultan.

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.

[Victor]

QUOTE

In exchange, how many betrayed Romania?

Well, feel free to give the 2-3 examples.

[inahurry]

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.

[Florin]

QUOTE

...................... 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.................... Dénes

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

[Victor]

QUOTE

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.

Constantin Brancoveanu was not the last one. Stefan Cantacuzino was in 1715.

[inahurry]

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.