What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Russia did not "come here" in 1877; they just passed through Romania in their way to the front (in nowadays Bulgaria). That was their initial reason...

Twelve Russian invasions on Romanian soil since that date. Sure we are a target.

Ah well, that is a bit misleading... A more accurate description would be that the Russians fought the Ottoman empire on Romanian soil. Many Romanians conveniently forget that what we call Romania today was part of the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years and the Russians and Turks were at war for a long part of that time. Some Romanians conveniently forget that it was also the Russians who helped us get our independence from the Ottoman empire in 1877 as part of that long Russo-Turkish campaign of wars.
...........................
Radu

When the Russians went to fight with the Ottoman Empire (1877), Carol the Ist offered the help of the Romanian Army. The Russians rejected the offer, with arrogance. Then the war started, and it started with defeats incurred by the Turks. This time the Russians asked to the Romanian Army to come in.
I do not say that the Romanian Army could win that war alone, but it seems the Russians could not do it alone, either.
Remember, the Turkish general Sinan insisted to surrender to the Romanian Army, and not to the Russian Army, to make a point.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 19, 2011 08:47 pm

Oh, this is quite far-fetched! The Russians simply didn't bring enough troops into the battlefield from the beginning; also, they might have lacked supplies for the siege battles in there... Should we remember they had a front in Caucasus, also?

Do you mean General Osman (Osman Nuri Pasha)?

The story is that he offered his sword in surrender to Colonel Mihail Cerchez who refused it as he was awaiting orders from Carol I. Then Osman was taken to Czar Alexander II to whom he offered his sword in surrender but the czar refused to take it as a sign of esteem.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 20, 2011 04:54 pm

So, how its change this the fact that they asked for our military help to win the war?

Do you mean General Osman (Osman Nuri Pasha)?

The story is that he offered his sword in surrender to Colonel Mihail Cerchez who refused it as he was awaiting orders from Carol I. Then Osman was taken to Czar Alexander II to whom he offered his sword in surrender but the czar refused to take it as a sign of esteem.

Radu

Yes, its Osman Pasha, and yes, he surrendered to Romanians, i think its less relevant if Mihail Cerchez took his sword or not

The fact that no one took his sword is indeed irrelevant. The point I tried to make was that he also surrendered to the Russians after he surrendered to the Romanians. I said that in reply to the statement that he preferred to surrender to the Romanians instead of surrendering to the Russians, whereas he actually surrenderd first to the Romanians and then to the Czar himself.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 20, 2011 07:43 pm

So, how its change this the fact that they asked for our military help to win the war?

Because they could've won the war anyway, but they needed more cannon fodder, be it Romanian, Russian or whatever else!
And, again, that war was also won in Caucasus, not only on the Bulgarian front.
Oh, of course all these do not change their help-seeking telegram, as nothing can change the past; perhaps only the way in which we see / understand the past events!

This post has been edited by MMM on August 24, 2011 03:22 pm

Romanian countries were never part of Ottoman Empire. There were principates under Ottoman suzeranity, with limited independence. And were not about 400 yers, but a more shorter time. As a example, after battle of Mohacs, when Hungary was put under ottoman rule, Transilvania was de facto independent principate, not included in Otooman Empire.
And these wars on Romanian soil was not a invasion?

A comparation with Viena's siege:

http://www.basarabialazi.ro/petru-bogatu-t...amant-romanesc/

A problem with we could meet in the near future:

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/08...si-romania.html

I disagree with Mr. Negrea:
1) Our Islamic migration doesn't really want to stay in here; it's more like "transit to west"; the few Islamist we do retain (up to my knowledge, at least) are keeping a low profile.
2) The "rioting days" were over in 1999, with the last of "mineriade". Does anyone really think we're afraid of anarchy? In Romania?
3) I don't want to hear anything about "negative demographics" and about Romanian people disappearing in the year 3200! We cannot predict with accuracy what will happen when the oil reserves will end or where's going to be the next war/revolution, let alone the demographics for more decades. Working in the education sector, I saw the great fall in the number of children since 1990 (there still is a huge gap between the 21-years-old and the 20-years-old), but things are quite stationary when regarding the number of children being born (and recorded in Romania, that is...).

They were part of the Ottoman Empire but they had a degree of internal autonomy. So they were more like "autonomous provinces."

I have to agree with you, Imperialist. Except the Romanian (nationalist) historians, every serious foreign historian admits the "dependence" - if not, why else did we have an Independance War?

This post has been edited by MMM on August 24, 2011 05:33 pm

Hmm, i dont think every foreign historian say that.
A province means a a teritory ruled by a direct representant of Sultan, a Pacha, a teritory where Turkish troops are permanently stationed, and most of the laws of the Ottoman empire are imposed, and their citizens are Ottoman subjects or citizens. None of this was the case here.
In Romanian Countries was forbiden for Turks to own land, was forbiden the religious prozelitism (even if the main duty of the Sultan was to use Jihad and spread islam), was forbiden to be builded mosques.
I think some of you confuse the suzeranity (even this wasnt always present, there was mixed periods, wars mixed with paying tribute) over a country by another country, with the term of a province. Following this logic, Poland or Bulgaria during comunist era (who was way more under Soviet control that was Romanian Countries under Ottoman one) was provinces of Soviet Union.
Or Federal Germany (at least much of the Cold War) was a US province


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...pe_map_1648.PNG

Dont believe too much what Turkish chronicles back then said either. For them even a defeat was such presented that it looked almost like a victory many times, they needed to look undefeated and always stronger, and foreign rulers as european kings or queens was considered simply emirs not worth to be considered equals of sultan.
The reality on the field may be way more diferent then what they writed in their chronicles

This post has been edited by udar on August 24, 2011 07:33 pm