Romania in WW 1, performance

The performance was a disaster! No doubt there was some bravery and many lost their lives but Romania (600k men) was defeated by 1 mixed Austro-German Army and the Bulgarians!
There is much pride amongst Romanians for this effort and I dont know why? I am sure that sacrifice was made but then respect the sacrifice and not the performance!
The Romanians had the Carpathians and many rivers as defense lines and could hold none of them!

You forgot the Turks.

The Turks did not have alot of troops in this sector. Probably because things were going so well that they did not need them.

to feic...

You should read more about romanian army in ww1!
If you'll learn about training, equipment and conditions (on 2 fronts) romanian troops fought in comparison with german troops, you'll find the performance of romanian army.

The same austro-german army was beaten by romanians at Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz in 1917, less than 1 year after the events you call desaster. But it seems you dont rem (or know) this. I'd call this victories a performance

Who said he did not respect the sacrifice?

Unfortunately the owners of this site (us) did not have time to write comprehensively the chain of events that lead to the disaster of 1916, but the failure along the Carpathians came after Romanian offensive in Transylvania was stopped and all the effort was shifted in the south, for the offensive at Flamanda, against the mixed Central Powers amassed there. Not a brilliant maneuver, but you can think of it like the cancellation of operation Zitadelle (Kursk) by Hitler in order to deal with the Allied forces that threatened the "soft unterbelly" of Europe.

Romania emerged from WW1 with more than it hoped to gain from it and untouched by Communism. That was a performance. There is much more to Romania's participation in WW1 than a footnote in Western front-centric WW1 histories.

Now, if you are interested in learning more about this participation, I am sure the members will help you with information. There is some information about WW1 battles on the website. My advice is to read it.

1. Romanian front was longer than the one in the West, defended by MILLIONS.
Our allies made lots of promises and kept none (Sarrail in the south, Russian divisions coming too late in Dobrudja, weapons and ammunitions bogged in Russia, etc.). In hand-to-hand battles, Romanians were superior and Germans were quite frightened and preferred to mow them down with machine-guns. In Transylvania, Romanian forces made the mistake of delaying their advance to Mures river and thus making the front shorter and easier to defend before 40 experienced German divisions come from the Western front to reinforce the demoralized AH armies. Romanian army kept German and AH armies at bay in the Carpathian passes till half of November 1916, but due to a very long front and lack of reserves, it was very easy for Germans to build up a huge superiority in a low area and break the front. From there, it was easy to advance in columns and cross the Danube. Interestingly enough, Arges-Neajlov battle might have been a success due to lack of communication between all these columns, but Germans were lucky enough to capture R. plans and change theirs.
However, in 1917 Germans and AH armies were unable to repeat the scenario after heavy battles between equal forces.
2. Not always natural obstacles decide wars. Look how easy was for Romanian army to crush Bela Kun's and enter Budapest as the only allied power able to do so in WW1. And it happened being under pressure from the East and North.
3. Same in WW2. When Romania changed sides (23 Aug. 1944), combined Russian-Romanian forces needed just 2 months to cross the Carpathians, Mures river and push German-Hungarian forces out of Transylvania.

The post-W.W. 1 achievements by Rumania had nothing to do with the performance of the Rumanian Army. They were the result of a turbulent era, cleverly exploited by the Rumanian politicians and military, with the tacit help of the French.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. An old German historian whom I had a casual chat with several years ago mentioned that the defeat of the Rumanian army in a combined attack (a so-called 'pincer manoeuvre'), and it's cornering in the northern part of the country in 1916/1917 was reportedly tought in the German military academy as a case study. I cannot back his claim, so don't ask me for further details.

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 19, 2008 05:44 pm

There was a crucial difference between Western and Rumanian fronts. Rumania was defended by two formidable obstacles for any attacking army: the Carpathian mountains in the North and West and the Danube in the South. Both of these obstacles were eventually successfully crossed by the joint Central Powers' armies.

This single phrase is full with clichés and myths. What do you mean by "preferred'? What are you basing your allegations on?

Yet another misinformation. The AH armies, if we can call the few border guards and second-line units present in Transylvania, bordering Rumania - supposedly an ally - were not demoralised, but actually overwhelmed. They were not anticipating the Rumanian attack and were not prepared to repell it. That's why the relative ease the Rumanian troops could knife into Transylvania in the early stages of the cross-border offensive. And "40 experienced German divisions"?

Experienced German mountain troops actually crossed the Carpathains where the Rumanians did not anticipate it, and surprised them, turning their defence upside down.

Again, the two scenarios cannot be compared by any means. In late 1918, the Rumanian forces could penetrate and advance into Transylvania with little opposition, as there was no regular army left to face them.

The Soviet forces crossed the Carpathian passes aided by local Rumanians (villagers, shepherds). Despite this assistance, where German-Hungarian forces could build up reinforced defence lines in time, the Soviet troops were kept at bay for days, or even weeks, until the defenders were forced to retreat due to the (to them) unfavourable situation on other areas of the front, and the risk of being attacked from the flanks.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 19, 2008 04:52 pm

that is exactly the way a soldier is supposed to fight a modern war.
bayonet attack is a skill suited to the horse&musket era, which is why nobody emphasized on it anymore. also the success or failure of a bayonet attack is completly hostage to the tactical situation. there are numerous examples of successful small scale bayonet attacks on the western and eastern front, performed by all sides involved.
insistence on blank steel when other means are available are in fact a sign of incompetence and failure to adapt to modern warfare. not that there wouldn't be enough examples on all sides for this (1st Ypres, Somme, East Prussia and so forth).
I've even heared the hand-to-hand fighting argument brought forward in a WW2 conext where it is even more wrong.

the cause for about 60% of all ww1 combat casualties goes to artillery, while about 25% is accounted by machine guns. this leaves precious little for small arms fire or even blank steel.

could you please source the affirmation? because 40 divisions would mean well over 400.000 men, and by 1916 there were around 650.000-700.000 german soldiers on the entire eastern front .

we have discussed this in past allready. there were several alternatives of offensive actions for the romanian army, ranging from defending the carpathinas and attacking south to link with the allied "army" in Saloniki, to attack simultaneusly with Brussilov. the decision taken was the worst of all possible options.

I wonder how many divisions means 400,000 troops. That's what commanded Falkenhayn and Mackensen when defeating the Romanian army in 1916.
I remember I read about this huge number of divisions brought altogether, mostly from the Western front, even in Queen Maria's diary. And she was in a position to know plenty of such details.

This post has been edited by mateias on January 19, 2008 10:04 pm

that's the combined austro-hungartian, german, bulgarian and turkish force.
these however, would not come from the western front, except some german units.

Because the goal of the effort was achieved. You should ask the Austro-Hungarians if they are proud of their effort. Wait, there are no Austro-Hungarians anymore.

The post-W.W. 1 achievements by Rumania had nothing to do with the performance of the Rumanian Army. They were the result of a turbulent era, cleverly exploited by the Rumanian politicians and military, with the tacit help of the French.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. An old German historian whom I had a casual chat with several years ago mentioned that the defeat of the Rumanian army in a combined attack (a so-called 'pincer manoeuvre'), and it's cornering in the northern part of the country in 1916/1917 was reportedly tought in the German military academy as a case study. I cannot back his claim, so don't ask me for further details.

I beg to differ. The Romanian Army played a crucial role, as the politicians could not have acted without the help of an armed force to back them up. Have it not been for the defeats suffered by the 1st Austro-Hungarian and 9th German Armies in 1917 on the Moldavian front, there would not have been a Romania to talk about. Furthermore, the Romanian Army showed discipline and a formidable resistance to Bolshevism at a time when most of the military forces in the region were on the virge of dissolution.

I also beg to differ.

Just check the examples of states that either did not exist prior to 1919 (Czechoslovakia, for example), or were occupied during the war (Poland in WW2, for example). Both countries emerged more powerful after the war than they hoped for. Therefore, I assume that no matter if Rumania was fully occupied during WW1 or not, the eventual outcome (i.e., the state's territory was not only restored, but also greatly enlarged) would have been the same.

As for the bolshevisation, this phenomenon occured in weak or collapsed states (Russia, Hungary, Austria, etc.), with no or very weak government. However, in 1919 Rumania was exactly the opposite.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 20, 2008 12:26 pm