Romanians vs Romanians in WWI

S. Ghişe's memoires dont speak about the transition from AH oficer to romanian oficer.

Another former AH oficer, also from Transylvania, is the well known Octavian Tăslăuanu. He was in Galitien with AH army, wounded, came back to Transylvania to recover from wounds and crossed the romanian border from Carpathians on his own, alone. He left sanatorium as he was going to short trip around and took the way toward Romanian border, passing it into Romania. Arived in Romania before 1916, he was not enlisted in romanian army as he was citizen of AH monarchy (ok, Denes, I know there were austrian OR hungarian citizens, but I dont know what O.T. was ). After 1916, in some moment, he was enlisted in romanian army.

Other oficers were Elie Bufnea, one Nemoianu; I'll have to look in my books to remember the others.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 14, 2010 04:06 pm

Maybe the first Transylvanian oficer who was enlisted in Romanian army during ww1 is Bogdan Florian. In that time, leaders of Romanian army were look carefully at the volunteers from AH monarchy, because they feared espionage. Florian estabilish an comitee where all the volunteers were verificated, and later were integrated in Romanian army.
As an example, Octav Taslauanu was not accepted in romanian army immediatelly, only later. In 1914 he publicised his book, Trei luni pe campul de rasboiu, about his experience in Galicia, when he mentioned about firefights on front with Bassarabians, between 9-11 September 1914.

The perception of ethnicity existed in Europe at that time. It was based on common language, common customs, religion, identification with a common past/lineage.

You might call it an "incipient perception of ethnicity" in the sense that it certainly did not reach today's levels given the differences in education, means of mass communication, etc. And you can argue it might not have played the defining political role it was to play in the 19th or 20th centuries. But from that to saying it was a myth or nonsense is a big unscientifical leap imo.

Your second statement on the term Wallachian is very puzzling so could you please clarify it. Are you saying the term Wallachian denoted a different ethnicity? Some sources would be appreciated too.

For Denes:

I agree with your basic point concerning the more complex ethnic make-up of Transylvania. But what's important is what Soranzo does. He talks about the common origin of the inhabitants of three principalities. Common origins is one of the elements of ethnicity.

He was wrong in saying all Transylvanians had that origing.
However, even that wrong statement raises interesting possibilities.
Either Romanians were the majority there (but that's another topic already touched) so he made a blanket statement based on that. Or he must have heard it from somewhere. And unless some nationalist Romanian traveled back in time to tell that to Soranzo, he must have heard it from a cotemporary Wallachian, Moldovan or Romanian-ethnic Transylvanian or he must have read an even earlier account. So even this tells a lot about the perception of ethnicity in those times.

Maybe the most important oficer who was an AH oficer and later became general in Romanian army, was general Traian Mosoiu. He was born in Brasov county, absolved in 1889 Military School "Wiener Neustadt" and he was send to the regiment. At the begining of XX century, he crossed the Carphatians and joined Romanian army. In 1916, at battle of Sibiu, he was division comander, as general. He fought at Marasti, and he led the army who entered Transylvani in 1918. Later, in 1919 war, he was in comand of Northern Group of Transylvanian army. Later, he became Ministry of Defence, later Ministry of Communications and Ministry of Industry.

How could I forget about Traian Mosoiu!!! Indeed he was the most respect romanian oficer from former AH ones. I know one of his nephews.

Has he some momories written? I looked in libraries, at the authors, but I found none. I looked on the bibliography in pre ww2 books and quotes, and none again.

I dont know if he wrote his memoires, but I have somewhere some books about him, written recently, after year 2000, but I have to look after them, so it'll take a while.

Thank you very much guys, and I highly appreciate we can stay focused on the topic.

Of course I knew about the famous names such as Iacobici, Boeriu, Iuliu Maniu (he had no intention to join the Roumanian army) or Silviu de Herbay (who was not accepted in the Romanian Army and eventually became the president of the "U" Cluj football club, a symbol of the Roumanian nation-affirmed in sports - very interesting as case study).

However, I would highly appreciate if you could tell me, if you ever heard about those who were not accepted by the Roumanian Army, and especially those who did not want to live in Roumania.

P.S.
For imperialist: Everything that you mentioned are clearly features for a "nascent" ethnic identity, but still is not ethnicity. What I mean is that they have a perception of commonalities, but they never called it ethnicity. Ethnicity is what we make of it in nowadays talking about them. regarding "Wallachians", just search in a serious dictionary the etimology of the term ... see if you can find similar items, such as volohi, olasz, vlach, vlah, etc. It is a geographical denominator used for groups (even others that we call today Roumanians), not a ethnic denominator.

Summing up, thanks again for trying to help me with names.

Personally I don't care how they called it as long as they perceived its fundamentals and were aware of its presence. Contemporaries were also aware that it was a factor in the political equation. Sure, not having the weight it would obtain centuries later, but it was there, a part of the equation. So Michael's conquest of the three principalities is not completely unrelated to the ethnic factor.

Regarding the term Wallachians. From what I know (and this has been debated before some years ago on the forum) Wallachia was the foreigners' term for Tara Romaneasca (Romanian(s) country), and it derives from the ethnonym Vlachs/Wallachians/etc. There is no question that Vlachs/Wallachians refers to the Romanian ethnicity.

Imperialist:
this is my last post on this issue. I am glad you have such powerful convictions. I am a Romanian as well, but I am much more skeptical towards powerful convictions and a linear understanding of history.

I personally believe much more in "accidents", unintended consequences, and negotiated identities rather than linear, pozitivistic approaches.

This is why I am so interested in uncovering situations and personal dramas that do not belong to this very linear and classic approach of Romanian history: Roumanian officers that fought in XX Century for 'foreign causes", Romanians that were loyal to both the nation and the surrounding empires, Roumanians that did not accept the idea of Great Romania, Romanians that were rejected by Romanian institutions (the Army) after 1918, namely those cases that until today have been called "traitors" (see the case of "germanofili" in WWI), etc.

Out of curiosity, I checked Encyclopaedia Britannica, the most serious English language reference source in my view.

There is no separate term for Wallachians, or Walachians, but there is one for Vlachs, also mentioned in your list of synonymes (but it's not exactly the way you've said):

ARTICLE from the Encyclopædia Britannica

European ethnic group constituting a major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova and a smaller proportion of the population in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River. The name Vlach derives from a German or Slav term for Latin speakers.


The Vlachs, who call themselves Aromani or Arman, first appear in the historical record during the Middle Ages, primarily in the region south of the Balkans. They traditionally claim to be descendants of the Romans who in the 2nd century bce occupied ancient Macedonia and what is now northern and northeastern Greece and who by the 2nd century ce occupied Dacia, a Roman province located in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains of present-day Romania. After the Romans evacuated Dacia (271 ce), the area was subjected to a series of barbarian invasions. According to some scholars, the Romanized Dacians remained in the area, probably taking refuge in the Carpathian Mountains. They remained there for several centuries as shepherds and farmers, until conditions settled and they returned to the plains.

The Romanized Dacian population may have moved south of the Danube when the Romans left Dacia. After the barbarian invasions subsided, the Vlachs, seen in this theory as a later group of immigrants, moved into the area from their Romanized homelands south of the Danube or elsewhere in the Balkans. This theory cites the major role the Vlachs played in the formation and development of the Second Bulgarian Empire (also known as the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars; founded 1184) as evidence that the centre of the Vlach population had shifted south of the Danube.

By the 13th century the Vlachs were reestablished in the lands north of the Danube, including ... (300 of 829 words)

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 15, 2010 06:48 am

Well, REAAAALLY stupid from the part of British Encyclopedia to write this about romanian ethnogenesis.

It is futile to start a discussion around this big stupidity coming from so well known scientific work as BE and it is disapointing to see this.

Denes, there are discrepancies between the online version you present and the entry I have in my Encyclopaedia Britannica. Here is the entry I found:

Compare that to the entry you posted which strangely limits itself to saying they call themselves Aromani alone.

As for the rest of the entry, Enc. Britannica makes a combo of the 4 main theories regarding the place where the Romanians' ethnogenesis took place. But it does it a bit superficially (likely out of the need to be brief) and it might confuse the casual foreign reader that is not familiar with the subject.

I did not realise that. Indeed, they should clean up the entries and streamline the info.

The quote I found actually calls for two names, not one: "The Vlachs, who call themselves Aromani or Arman..."

Gen. Dénes

P.S. By the way, I did not know Armani had Vlach roots

Sebastian, here is a list of ex-k.u.k. airmen who enrolled into ARR (table taken from an article I wrote back in 1990, published in the Hungarian aviation magazine, Aero História):



Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 17, 2010 10:58 am