1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

Thanks to Petre, it is now clear, vetágyu is the misspelled version of vetőágyú.

This was neither a cannon, nor a mortar. Its barrel was shorter than a cannon's, but longer than a howitzer's. It fired mainly round, hollow iron balls or grenades filled with explosive, or fire igniting powder on an arc-like trajectory.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 13, 2011 06:27 pm

I know. Trying to help you, generally speaking the text you posted is a description and definition of what is a cannon, a mortar and a howitzer and what are the differences between them. A word by word translation would consume much time for me as I am not a native speaker of hungariam. So, as far I understand from the text, if you make a search with Google, you'll find all the info you need about this kind of weapons. I believe that in text is nothing particular to worth a particular translation. Thanks for your help, even if it was unintentional.

My post was a appropriate text found by Google-search on vetagyu (Hu. lexicon), just as a starting point. I could see vetagyu is wrong, vetoagyu is correct, but unfortunately Google-translator gave poor results. Also vetoagyu is not usually and till now it is not very clear what it realy was.

This post has been edited by Petre on November 15, 2011 09:35 am

The military operations in Transylvania involving romanian revolutionaries in 1848-1849:
http://www.mapn.ro/smg/gmr/Arhiva_pdf/2009/revista_2.pdf

For an article, good enough, even if had some things that not match (names of the romanian prefects, which prefect comanded what legion, number of total romanian combatants in a certain period and some other things). The erors are common made when citing a work without checking more sources on the same issue.

Here is the bibliography for my book (and still counting as I still have work to do on it )

Apostol, Andreea, Constantin Racoviţă în Obiectiv argeşean, 23 noiembrie 2011
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 6, 1926
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 10, 1929
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 11, 1929
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 12, 1930
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 19, 1936
„Arhiva Someşană”, Năsăud, nr. 21, 1937
Batternay, Imre, junior, Zaránd vármegyei oláh lázadásnak, 1848ik évi martius 15töl – 1849iki junius végeig terjedö, rövid történeti vázlata, manuscris, 1850
Berindei, Dan, Revoluţia română din 1849-1849, Bucureşti, 1998
Bocşan, Nicolae, Graf, Rudolf, Revoluţia de la 1848 în Munţii Apuseni – Memorialistică, Cluj-Napoca, 2003
Bolovan, Ioan,Onofreiu, Adrian, Contribuţii documentare privind istoria regimentului grăniceresc năsăudean, Bucureşti, 2006
Borda, Valentin, Dutcă, Viorica, Rus, Traian, Avram Iancu şi prefecţii săi, Târgu Mureş, 1997
Csuták, Kálmán, Aradi fogságom alatt írott adatok az 1848/9 évi szabadságharc különösen az Erdély havasai ellen vitett hadjáratról, Pesta, 1868
Dragomir, Silviu, Avram Iancu, Bucureşti, 1968
Dudaş, Florian, Avram Iancu – Eroul românilor, Oradea, 1993
Dudaş, Florian, Avram Iancu în tradiţia românilor, Timişoara, 1998
„Familia”, Pesta, nr. 3, 1865
Florea, Alin Bogdan, Tinerii şi istoria. Tineri la 1848-1849 în Transilvania în Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, nr. 14, Alba Iulia, 2008
Furduiu, Ilie, Abrud – pagini de eroism, Alba Iulia, 2001
Furduiu, Ilie, Revoluţia de la 1848-1849, martiri şi eroi, Alba Iulia, 2002
Gorgey, Arthur, My life and acts in Hungary in the years 1848 and 1849, New York, 1852
Graf, Rudolf, Timişoara sub asediu: Jurnalul Feldmareşalului George v. Rukawina (aprilie-august 1849), Cluj-Napoca, 2008
Hidas, Peter I., The russian intervention in Hungary in 1849, Montreal, 1967
Josan, Nicolae, Românii din Munţii Apuseni de la Horea şi Avram Iancu la Marea Unire din 1918, Alba Iulia, 2001
Josan, Nicolae, Blandiana – Monografie istorică (I) în Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia, 2004
Josan, Nicolae, Memorandistul moţ Rubin Patiţia 1841-1918, Alba Iulia, 2002
Josan, Nicolae, Popa, Liliana, Cetatea Alba Iulia în timpul revoluţiei din anii 1848-1849 – documente vieneze, Alba Iulia, 2001
Klapka, Georg, Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Londra, 1850
Kövari, Lászlo – Erdély története 1848-1849-ben, Pesta, 1861
Lászlo, Lászlo, Revoluţia de la 1848 din Transilvania (VI) în Caiete Silvane, Zalău, 2009
Lazăr, Ioachim, Morar, Nicolae Marcel, Avram Iancu în memoria posterităţii, Deva, 2008
Lupaş, Ioan – Viaţa şi activitatea lui Gheorghe Bariţiu în Conferinţele ASTREI, Sibiu, 2008
Mager, Traian, Ţinutul Hălmagiului, 1937
Moga, Vasile, De la Apulum la Alba Iulia – fortificaţiile oraşului, Bucureşti, 1987
Mureşan, Camil – În templul lui Janus. Studii şi gânduri despre trecut şi viitor, Cluj-Napoca, 2002
Neamţu, Gelu, Maghiari alături de revoluţia de la 1848-1849 din Transilvania în Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, 2002
Neamţu, Gelu, Tutula, Vasile, Aspecte militare şi pagini memorialistice despre revoluţia şi războiul civil din Transilvania 1848-1849, Cluj-Napoca, 2008
Neamţu, Gelu, „Documente pentru viitorime” privind genocidul antiromânesc din Transilvania 1848-1849, Cluj-Napoca, 2009
Neş, Nicolae - Oameni din Bihor (1848-1918), Oradea, 1937
„Observatorul”, Toronto, noiembrie 2010
Pag, Teodor, Zarandul, ţară de voievozi, cneji şi nobili români, Cluj-Napoca, 2005
Pascu, Ştefan, Avram Iancu, Bucureşti, 1972
Popescu-Râmniceanu, Virgil, Luptele românilor din Ardeal 1848-49, Bucureşti, 1919
Prodan, David, Transilvania şi iar Transilvania, Bucureşti, 1992
Racoviţă-Cehan, Mihai, Familia Racoviţă-Cehan – Genealogie şi istorie, Bucureşti, 1942
Ranca, Ioan, Avram Iancu pe baricadele Apusenilor, Târgu Mureş, 2006
Rusu Abrudeanu, Ion, Moţii, calvarul unui popor eroic, dar nedreptăţit, Bucureşti, 1928
Sîntimbrean, Aurel; Bedelean, Horea; Bedelean, Aura, Aurul şi argintul Roşiei Montane, Alba Iulia, 2006
Schlesinger, Max, The war in Hungary, 1848-1849, Londra, 1850
„Societatea de mâine”, Cluj, nr. 19-20, anul I, 1924
Springean, Neli – George Bariţiu în Seria PERSONALIA, nr. 11, Sibiu, 2007
Sterca-Şuluţiu, Iosif, O lacrimă fierbinte, 1877
Sterca-Şuluţiu, Iosif, La anul 1784 şi la anul 1849, 1881
Süli, Attila, A nemzetőrség szervezése Erdélyben 1848 nyarán és őszén în „Hadtörténelmi
Közlemények”, nr. 3, Budapesta, 2000
Teodor, Pompiliu, Avram Iancu în memorialistică, Cluj, 1972
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 10, anul VIII, mai 1875
„Transilvania”, Braşov, nr. 1, anul IX, ianuarie 1876
„Transilvania”, Braşov, nr. 23, anul IX, decembrie 1876
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 21-22, anul XV, noiembrie 1884
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 1-2, anul XVII, ianuarie 1886
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 3-4, anul XVII, februarie 1886
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 5-6, anul XXVIII, iunie-iulie 1897
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 2-3, anul XXIX, martie-aprilie 1898
„Transilvania”, nr. 9, anul LIII, septembrie 1922
„Transilvania”, Sibiu, nr. 1, anul LXXIV, ianuarie 1943
Tucă, Florian; Ucrain, Constantin, Locuri şi monumente paşoptiste, Bucureşti, 1988
„Ţara Bârsei”, Braşov, nr. 3, anul I, septembrie-octombrie 1929
„Ţara Noastră”, Sibiu, nr. 8, anul III, martie 1909
„Új Forrás”, Tatabánya, nr. 6, anul XXXIV, 1998
Veresegyházi, Béla - Magyar csatahelyek kisenciklopédiája, Budapesta, 2000
colectiv, Alba Iulia 2000, Alba Iulia, 1975
colectiv, Istoria României. Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1997
colectiv, Revoluţia de la 1848 în Transilvania. Ancheta Kozma din Munţii Apuseni, Cluj-Napoca, 1998
colectiv, Ţara Moţilor, nr. IV, Cluj-Napoca, 1992

HAPPY NEW YEAR! to all the forum members,
and obviously for you too 21 inf,
I just found the article and as one who is not very familiar with the subject of the 1848/1849 war in Transylvania I was happy to find it discussed from a viewpoint of a military specialist. As you and others probably realized until now, my interest is focused on military history, this including wars, tactics and warfare, military organization and other related to this! So I am focused in reading and studies on these issues, that's why my questions and research are directed on these! As I said earlier I wait your book where I am convinced I will find enough material where I am interested in!

Andreas, just ask what you want to know about 1848/49 military actions in Transylvania and I'll try to answer you.

About the article you mentioned, not necesarilly if one has a military rank is automatically a good military historian. For example, the recruiting for romanian Landsturm was not from 18 years of age, but from 17 and sometimes go as high as 60 years old, not only 50. The planned number of raising 195.000 fighters from romanian ranks is true, but in reality was never acomplished. In sping of 1849 the author of the article says that it was a rifle to every 30 romanian fighters, which is not quite accurate. He mention what Avram Iancu says in his "Raport", that he had only 1.300-1.400 rifles (but this speaks only for Auraria Gemina Legion, not for all romanian Landsturm!). This is valid, but if one makes a simle calculation, 1.300 rifles x 30 men = 39.000 men. Avram Iancu never had more than about 6.000 men, at his high maximum 7.000 men (and this was a number including the remains of some other legions, not only Auraria Gemina Legion he commanded). The whole romanian Landsturm couldnt have 40.000 men in spring of 1849. Maybe it had so much men in october-november 1848, but after hungarian offensive from december 1848, the ranks of romanian Landsturm fell dramatically. In october 1848 romanian Landsturm had some 30.000 men (from about 4 or 5 legions) which went on march toward Turda, but after the fell of Cluj after mid november 1848 most of men were dibanded due to lack of food and winter clothing. In december 1848 Avram Iancu raised only 1500 men in one time and 1500 men in another time. In summer 1849 Avram Iancu had only about 4 to 6.000 men. You'll find all the details in my book.

In the Mărişel fight from 12 march 1849 the author, general Ciobanu, says that Iancu sent 3 columns of fighters, each of 300 hungred men. That means 900 romanians, not including women!!! Totally wrong! First of all, the limits of Apuseni Mountains were defended by local romanian villagers, not by Avram Iancu. It was the case of Mărişel, also. The number of romanian fighters in this battle is not mentioned in any source I know. The single fact known is that the village was defended by it's villagers. Avram Iancu was not present and sent no troops to help. The participation of women in the fight resulted as desperation, as there were not enought men to defend properly the village. Check here http://www.enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/Lu...12_martie_1849) my article about this fight. Also, consulting the "Raport" of Avram Iancu, there are the same datas as I wrote.

Gen Ciobanu says hungarian troops atacked romanians during peace discussion on Mihăileni. Not acurate. Major Hatvani atacked romanians at Abrud. At Mihăileni peace discussion were held 2 weeks BEFORE the atack mentioned. At it's Hatvani, not Hatvany. The report of Hatvani is known as being exagerated, by fear and by necesity to justify his defeat. Also, the report of Kemeny Farkas is exagerated regarding the number of romanian fighters. When Bem find about the failure of Kemeny's mission, he ordered Kemeny to imediately return to Apuseni and to crush romanian resistance. Kemeny had to justify what he did (or not).

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 02, 2012 08:55 am

Thank you 21 inf,
I do have a large series of questions, so I try to address them gradually, going into detail where I am more interested! Please excuse my few knowledge in the field and eventually give me, if you have patience, detailed explanations on the organization and equipping forces, their degree of military training, their command and military cooperation relations between them. So, my first question is : what degree of military cooperation between Austrian Army headquarters in Transylvania and hungarian irregulars (irregular militias) after the acceptance of "the union of Transylvania with Hungary" by the Emperor in june 1848? To be more specific there were evidence of support for the Hungarian militia in their punitive actions against the Romanians or only supplies of arms? How much freedom of action had the Szekler Regiments during this period in Transylvania and if these regiments were involved in military operations against the Romanians?

In June 1848 the situation was still not clear for the austrian military authorities. They slowed down the rate of giving weapons to militias (hungarian and saxon - romanian militia was not yet organised, as was not the szekler one). There were no more cannons given to hungarian militia and the number of rifles handed to them was decreasing almost to none. Generally speaking, austrian authorities just sat and waited.

In summer 1848 1st Batalion of 2nd Romanian Border Regiment from Năsăud was sent by hungarian governmental comisars from Năsăud to Hungary in order to be sent to fight serbs in southern Hungary. At first, romanian soldiers from this batalion obeyed, but after a short time, long before leaving Transylvania, they were asked by the new hungarian authorities to swear on hungarian constitution, as a sign of faith toward Hungary. In seconds, romanian soldiers (ok, one can say they were austrian soldiers of romanian origin ) refused to put this oath. It was one of the first open atitude of a austrian military authority against hungarians.Even so, they were sent to Hungary and pressed all the time to join hungarian side, which they refused. After that, vicecolonel (lieutnant-colonel) Karl Urban was the first austrian superior oficer who openly refused to join hungarian side. A more firm position of austrian army from Transylvania went only in october, when Kossuth sent an ultimatum to them, asking them to hand over all fortifications from Transylvania to hungarian army and to join it, or to leave the fortification if they dont want to join hungarian revolution. Only in that moment austrian army reacted and refused to obey Kossuth, declaring openly that it will fight if necesary.

The Szekler Regiments had the same freedom of movement as any other austrian unit in that time, but I dont have enough info to answer this question. At the moment Kossuth established the Hondvedseg (hungarian national army), they were considered on hungarian side. I know szekler units fighting romanians in Apuseni Mountains, especially in Zarand and Ţara Moţilor, but it is not mentioned if they were regulars or militia.

Ok, let's move on,
After the first battle (Zlatna october 1848) between the romanian and hungarian militia, please describe me the following battles from Central Transylvania, where I read that hungarian and/or szekler troops (not sure if regular troops -the former Szekler-Grenzhusarenregiment and the two Szekler-Grenzinfanterieregiments or just militia) clashed with romanian detachments (Iernut and other places). Also tell me how did a fight go on between a romanian detachment (normaly poorly armed with firearms) and a well-armed unit (if it was a case in these battles or not)? Did the hungarians had firearms for all their men or was it similar to our nationalguards? These battles were a consequence of the Szekler insurgency (call it adherence to Hungarian revolution if you want for me it's the same) or a consequence of the plan made by our leadership (National Comitee from Sibiu or Avram Iancu leadership)? Please give me details also about the attitude of the imperial troops at this time (did they helped us or supply arms or indifference)! Thanks a lot!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on January 04, 2012 03:14 pm

Ok, Andreas, let's take it step by step.

1. At Zlatna in october 1848 was not actually a battle. Petru Dobra's Legion heard that in some places romanian legions started to disarm the hungarian national guards. In the same time, Legion Auraria Gemina from Câmpeni, led by Avram Iancu, started to disarm the national hungarian guard from Abrud, AT SUPERIOR ORDERS! Dobra's legion had no order for disarming hungarian guard from Zlatna, but went into town. There were local hungarian national guards and hungarian guards from other localities. Peace talks started and a hungarian-romanian comision was formed in order to establish the way hungarians will give up the weapons. A mining administrator, Nemegyey Janos, ordered fire, by surprise, at romanian armed peasants who sat in the town square, waiting for the negociations to end peacefully. Some romanian peasants fell dead, the others run. They regrouped on the hills and charged against the town. Meanwhile, hungarian guards retreated from Zlatna, being outnumbered and put fire at romanian buildings in the hope romanians will stop to estinguish fires. Hungarian civilians also fled. Romanian armed peasants entered town, put fire at hungarian buildings and chased the fleing hungarians. Some were killed went romanians kept them from behind, others (most of them) were killed at Presaca. More than 600 hungarians, guards and civilians were killed.

2. Szekler offensive started in 19 october.Here is a calendar of fights, as far as I know now:
20 october: the szekler vanguard reached Tg Mureş.
22 october: austrian general Gedeon is sent to Fărăgaş to start operations agaisnt szeklers.
23 october: In Cipău and in Iernut romanian militia was atacked by count Lazar Denes brigade, who drive them away. Romanian militia fled.
25 october: a szekler column is defeated by imperial troops at Saroş. On the same day, Axente Sever prefect is defeated by hungarians at Ciumbrud, Alba. On the same say, romanian Landsturm clashes with hungarians at Sâncrai. On the same day, hungarian national guards from Aiud, led by count István Kemény atacked the romanian militia camp from Măgina and routed the romanian fighters.
26 october: Luduş is taken by szeklers. A szekler column, leaving Lutiţa, reach Băgaciu.
28 october: Romanian Landsturm wins a victory against honveds led by count Gábriel Bethlen. On the same day 2nd romanian grenz regiment is defeated by hungarians at Şapartoc.
31 october: Mureş Legion atacked and defeated count Lázár Dénes's brigade. On the same day, vicecolonel Urban is defeated by szeklers at Sântioana, near Reghin.
5 november: Mureş Legion, led by prefect (equivalent with general rank in regular army) Constantin Romanu-Vivu, atacked Lazar Denes's brigade and records show that the brigade was almost totally wiped off. On the same day, szekler troops are defeated by imperial army at Tg Mureş.

The fights continued, but is too long to write here a day by day account. I hope this answered at least partially to your question. I didnt studied carefully the OOB, so I cant say now what szekler unit fight, but is sure that at least a part of them were nemzetorseg, national guards.

3. At the time of october-december 1848 some of the fights resulted as consequence of szekler movement. Romanian movement i dont know, i didnt studied the issue for october 1848. for november and december romanian troop movement was at austrian order.

I'll write about tactics later.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 04, 2012 04:48 pm

Thanks 21 inf,
I try to read (but it's very difficult because it's written in old german characters) a free book downloaded from Google called "Der Nationalkrieg in Ungarn und Siebenburgen in den jahren 1848 und 1848" written by Georg Klapka and published in 1851! The problem (other then the hard reading german -I know german but these old characters are almost impossible!) is that I don't entirely trust the author (who for instance blame entirely the romanians for Zlatna events!). So I will continue with the series of questions, gradually, following the events in their chronological order! I hope you don't take this as an abuse from me, but since I haven't read a book describing as detailed possible the events from 1848-1849 from Transylvania, I need to ask somebody who studied it! So you understand my interest on this and also my many questions!

Andreas, just keep asking what you want to know, I'll try to answer you. You can find online PDF version of Klapka, Georg, Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary, Londra, 1850, but has few references of fighting with romanian Landsturm.

LE> I dont know a good romanian book about day by day military events in Transylvania in 1848/1849. I put together the puzzle of there from romanian, hungarian and a few austrian sources. What I put together is still incomplete.

Much LE :

Regarding the tactics, there were diferent ones depending on the type of weapons romanians had. A remarque: in 1848-49 all romanian fighters were called "lăncieri", doesnt matter if they had rifles or not. Here I will use the designation of "lăncieri" only for those armed with "coase îndreptate" or "lănci"; but a "lăncier" could as well be armed with "topor", "bardă", "îmblăciu", "furcă", spear, bow and arrows or other "armă albă".

For the "lăncieri" companies (a company was named centurie in 1848 in romanian Landsturm), which was planned to have 200 men each, it was indicated to atack in close ranks. After the first company, the second and the third companies came at short distance. It was a kind of human wave attack. If the first company was defeated, the second and the third had to keep pushing, allowing the retreating one to regroup and charge again. If the first one was succesfull and the enemy pinned down on the battlefield, the second and the third company had to flank the enemy and to suround him, forcing him to surrender or die. Other tactic was that the "lăncieri" company served as decoy for the enemy, making him to start a chase. When the enemy unit started the chase, the "lăncieri" company withdraw over the top a hill, ocupying a position on the reverse slope, just a few meters down, enough that the enemy couldnt see it. When the enemy was on the top of the hill, the "lăncieri" company charged from a few step distance, yelling as hell. This were tactics against enemy infantry.

Against cavalry, the "lăncieri" company was instructed to fight as any regular infantry, making a "careu", using it's "lănci" for making a defence looking like a hedgehog.

The "puşcaşi" or "vânători" units ("puşcaşi" or "vânători" is the same thing, but found under both names in the 1848-49 and later writings) fought almost the same way as regular infantry. They were able to fight as light infantry or line infantry, making ambushes or raids like regular infantry. They also have sharpshooters, many of the "puşcaşi" being skilled hunters before revolution. For atacks, they formed assault columns which charged the enemy.

In battle, if there were both "puşcaşi" and "lăncieri" companies, the "puşcaşi" ones entered battle in the first line, "lăncieri" being given as support for them.

Romanian cavalry was insignificant in numbers, mostly used, probably, as couriers.

Romanian artillery was build up from wooden cannons, "treascuri", self-made iron cannons and captured hungarian cannons. There few to none trained artilery men in romanian ranks, usually "puşcaşi" manned the cannons. Wooden cannons were made usually from fir tree wood, circled with 9-10 iron circles as reinforcement. They could fire up to 10 shots, after that they were useless. They could fire stone, wood, iron or incendiary rounds, but were used mainly for intimidating purposes. For shooting, they were installed on wooden "capre". "Treascuri" were mortar-like looking pieces of artilery, also called "mojar" or "piuliţe". Almost every village used to have one, used in peace times as peasant celebrations. They were used for signals, when fired made a big noise. 3 iron cannons were casted at Câmpeni in January 1849, from which 2 were good and were used in battle. Hungarian captured artillery consisted on 2, 3, 6 and 12 pounders cannons.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 04, 2012 08:24 pm

Ok, thanks 21 inf!
Studying a bit the problem of the chances in a battle for the romanian formations (landsturm as the austrians call them) I understood this: actually if we ignore the artillery the situation was not so worse as I expected! The answer stays in the rifles (the smoothbore muskets) used by the majority of enemy forces (austrian or hungarian) by 1848. The 1842M Augustin-type smoothbore musket (as all of the muskets if we speak in general) had a deadly accuracy from 45 - 65 m, and generally low accuracy. That's why the long bayonets were very praised! So a low fire discipline of the soldiers or militia armed with those muskets can make them very vulnerable as the musket reloading with ammo required long time! Tell me, as a next question, what do you know about the tactics used by our troops in combat with better equipped troops! I mean here : were they helped in deployment, combat maneuvers and combat operations by austrian officers (I know that some were used along the imperial forces but many legions had no such help) or what helped them to organize their forces so well as they did? What was their secret?

First of all, an answer I didnt gave yet: hungarian-szekler troops were far better armed with fire weapons, but were some units, usually nemzetorseg (national guards) as bad armed with fire weapons as romanians. There are examples of this kind of units were from 3-400 men only 60 had rifles.

Now the answer about romanian instructors and tactics: almost each romanian legion (division), made at least on the paper by up to 10.000 men, in reallity only one managed to have 8.000 men, the others only between 2.000 to 6.000, had an austrian oficer given as "military adviser" and "military comander". It was the case of captain Ivanovici who was asigned to Auraria Gemina Legion, lieutnant-major Mânzat to Axente Sever's legion, lieutnant Şăndruc from 1st romanian border regiment given to units from around Aiud, lt. Clima from Leiningen Regiment given to Zarand Legion and later lt. Cernovici given to the same legion. Some of them were ok, doing their job, some, as cpt. Ivanovici, were reported as doing nothing. Beside this "oficial" instructors, all able former romanians who served in the army were given ranks in the legions. They teached romanian peasants how to fight in improvised military camps, called "lagăr" or "loagăr" in 1848-49. Peasants were called to camps for some days to make military training. For training existed some "regulamente" printed like small booklets in romanian language, some of them written by austrian officers. In the biggest battles in Apuseni Mountains in May and June 1849 at Abrud, there was no austrian military counselors there, except cpt Ivanovici, who did nothing and in the last battle fled. All battle plans were made by young romanian revolutionaries, some of the lawyers, some of the priests. They learned by necesity. Experienta docet.