William Tyler
Romania: Beginnings of the Modern State 1856-1940
William Tyler - Romania: Beginnings of the Modern State, 1856-1940
- Now this first talk is called “Romania: Origins of the Modern State.” I suppose what comes to mind when the name Romania is mentioned, probably for most people, it’s Count Dracula and mediaeval Transylvania, or the horrendous couple, Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu. And we all remember when their regime failed on that Christmas Day, live on TV. But for us Britons, it’s the king’s interest in Transylvania with his Transylvanian estate that we might think of. And apparently, you can stay in his castle on B and B basis, Bed and Breakfast, if that’s an English phrase that others don’t know. So you can actually go to King Charles’s estate in Transylvania. Sounds interesting, I must say. But today, my story is not about Dracula, not about the Ceausescus, or about Prince Charles, but about a period in Romanian history, which for many people, remains dark. Now I hope today in this talk to shed a little light on the origins of Romania as a modern state. And today, Romania is both a member of NATO and a member of the European Union. There are three points to bear in mind, if you will, as I start the talk. First of all, the origin of Romania today lies in the merger of two former Ottoman vassal states, Moravia and Wallachia. And if you look on the map that everyone was sent with the joining instructions, you will see that Wallachia and Moravia border the coast of the Black Sea. But they also, in addition to bordering the coast of the Black Sea, neighbouring countries which they border, are Ukraine to the north, Hungary to the west, Serbia to the southwest, Moldova to the east, and the Black Sea to the southeast. It is in other words, in quite a central position in Eastern Europe. It’s got all these countries around it. And I said I had my hair cut today.
Now as chance will be, the person cutting my hair was a young lady who had come from Moldova. And I began to talk to her about what I was doing tonight, bored her stiff, I expect, but she was very interested and said, “Yes, at the moment people are taking their holidays "from Moldova in Romania. "That’s the in place to go for holidays "because it’s cheaper than Bulgaria,” she said. I’m not sure that’s true, but that’s her view. And it’s a part of the world in which, this is the sort of thing one would like to do as a test to the British Foreign Secretary or the American Secretary of State. To give them a blank map of Eastern Europe and say, “Right, now then, "question one, mark Moldova. "Question two, mark the former provinces "of Wallachia and Moravia.” I don’t think they could. Well, maybe I’m doing them a disservice, but I’m not sure that I am, actually. So this is a corner of the world that we, perhaps in the West, know little about? We know the names. We may know, as I said, about Dracula and the Ceausescus, but we do not know some of that history. And why is it important? It’s the same reason that everything is important in history because it pertains to the present. And the present pertains to the past. Now I’ve just said that the origin of Romania lies in the two Ottoman states of vassal states of Moravia and Wallachia, which in my talk today, come together and form Romania. But there’s a third part of Romania today. A large part, and that is Transylvania.
But Transylvania had long left the Ottoman Empire and by the time of my story in the 19th century, Transylvania is part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. So there’s two empires with an interest in what today we call Romania, and that is the Ottoman Empire, Wallachia and Moravia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Transylvania. But then there’s a third interest in this area in the 19th and indeed in the 20th century, and potentially in the 21st, which is, of course, Russia. Russia. Now the lady hairdresser that I had today from Moldova, separate country, south of Ukraine, you’ve all seen it on the maps on the television, she isn’t going back to Moldova, partly because it’s poor and partly because she’s nervous that were the Russians to break through in Ukraine, they would break through into Moldova as well. Now were they to do that, then the whole of Eastern Europe is open. Bulgaria, Romania, potentially, Hungary and Serbia. It’s all quite a problem. And the idea that Western Europe can let the Ukrainians get on with it without supplying them even with the tanks they need, think of Germany, then that is unrealistic. And Zelenskyy, whatever you think of Zelenskyy, is right, in saying that they are fighting this war as our proxy against Russia. So this story of the origin of Romania in the coming together of Moravia, Wallachia, Ottoman Empire, and Transylvania, Austro-Hungarian Empire, to form Romania is important, it’s very important because there’s always the great bear of Russia looming over Eastern Europe. Let me read you a piece from the book that I mentioned last week and everyone wanted me to give them the title and I still can’t do it.
It needs to be published before I can do that. The publication date is April. It’s a book about Eastern Europe and it’s by an American author and his name is quite straightforward, Jacob Mikanowski. And Jacob Mikanowski’s book, in that he writes this, “Eastern Europe” as a whole, “Eastern Europe is a land in between, "take a map and circle Vienna, "Istanbul, and St. Petersburg.” In other words, the old Austro-Hungarian capital, the old Ottoman capital, and the old Tsarist capital and indeed, Marxist capital. “Take a map and circle Vienna, "Istanbul, and St. Petersburg, "it is a sum of everything "that happened in the middle of those three.” They are the external empires pushing down on Eastern Europe. “It is a constellation, Eastern Europe, "of peripheries, ruled from distant capitals "to whom they were only at best, a marginal concern. "To be Eastern Europea, is to have had the experience "of being governed from far away. "It means having lived under the shadow of the yoke, "the knout, and the hangman’s noose. "It also means harbouring a grudge. "In short, it is a region defined by being part of, "but never at the centre of empires.” That’s a very good sentence. I’m very impressed by his book. And so we set the scene for the story of Romania between the three empires, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman and Russia, in Eastern Europe, surrounded today by a myriad of countries and bordering the Black Sea. And it’s different. There is a line in Bram Stoker’s book, “Dracula”, set in Transylvania, you remember? And the line goes like this. It’s an Englishman speaking, “We are in Transylvania "and Transylvania is not England. "Our ways are not your ways. "And there shall be to you many strange things.” I’m sorry, this is a Transylvanian speaking. “We are in Transylvania and Transylvania is not England. "Our ways are not your ways "and there shall be to you many strange things. "Nay, from what you have told me "of your experiences already, "you know something of what strange things there may be.”
And if you read “Dracula” in Victorian England or Victorian America, it was a dark place in which you could readily believe that vampires existed. And for many, although we know that is nonsense today, except that Dracula was a real life person. Although we know that today, we still think of it, if we think much of the area as being dark. As Mrs. Thatcher might have said, “Not quite like us.” It’s different. Mikanowski goes on to say, “Eastern Europe is a very complicated place.” And certainly, it’s complicated for those who live outside of it. But talking to my barber this afternoon, she was quite happy to talk about Moldova. She was quite happy to talk about Romania, and Bulgaria and Ukraine. To her, they were the places she went on holiday. It was the places she knew in the same way as someone living in Britain would be quite happy to talk about France, and Italy, and Germany and Spain. It’s places we go on holiday. We know about them. But although we have increasingly gone on holiday to Eastern Europe, they still remain somewhat distant for most people. Somewhat dark and difficult to get to know, even for those who might have had a week or a fortnights holiday in one of those countries. So my question to myself as I begin this talk is when does the story of modern Romania begin? And that’s a difficult question in itself because if you read half a dozen historians, you get half a dozen different answers and they range in time from the Ottoman rule, from the middle of the 16th century, right through to the Treaty of Berlin in 1878.
So you can take any date from mid-16th to 1878 as your starting point. I think, however, a good starting point is 30 years before the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, which takes us back to that incredible year of revolution across the whole of Europe, west and east of 1848. The 1848 Revolution, any history of the 19th century, bar that of Britain, takes into account because it has to, 1848, this year of revolution, called by historians, very often, “the Springtime of Peoples.” It’s the beginning of a sense of nationhood. But along with nationhood, a sense of democracy. A sense that people are the nation, not lords and masters who may not be of the same ethnicity as oneself, but it’s a nation speaking. It’s all people speaking. “The Springtime of Peoples.” Now that occurred in Wallachia and Moravia, as well as in Western and other places of Eastern Europe. Therefore, the year 1848 places Romania’s story right in the heart of Europe story. And that’s why I’m taking 1848 as a starting point. Keith Hitchins, in the book that I put on my blog, “The Short History of Romania”, says much the same thing as I just said, but in a Romanian context. And he writes this, if I find the right book that might help. He writes this on page 91. “The generation of 1848”, which was a phrase used at the time. “The generation of 1848 stood for a new, "comprehensive vision of nation. "And they were determined to place their theory "before an audience well beyond their own limited circles.” In translation, an intellectual middle class were reaching out to the working class. In Romania’s terms, to the peasant class. This is not a movement of the aristocracy, but a movement of an increasing intellectual middle class across the whole of Europe.
And not least, let me say, in those two provinces, which were later to form Romania. “So in so doing”, says Hitchins, “They move much closer to the people "than any previous generation "and thus gave a distinctly modern term "to the idea of a nation.” And so it was, that Wallachia and Moravia broke into revolution against their their own local rulers and against, therefore, the Ottoman Empire. 1848 was a real threat to the structures of Europe, to the big nations, to the empires of Europe. And they hit back very strongly. And in terms of Wallachia and Moravia, the Russians and the Ottomans buried their differences to bring peace, well, to bring peace by destroying the revolution in both those states. It was in their self-interest to cooperate. The Ottomans didn’t want to lose control and the Russians didn’t want a deal with two states that might spread their radicalism, as they would see it, into Russia itself. Hence, a cooperation between Russia and Ottoman Empires. They brought back Transylvania, sorry, they brought back Moravian and Wallachia from the brink of moving towards independence. The provisional governments were closed down and they restored the status quo ante, but the status quo ante has been shaken as it had across the whole of Europe. And 1848 marks a watershed. It may in itself not have brought immediate change, but it shifted, it shifted the underpinning of the old regime. And something is astir in Europe, and it is the idea of nationhood and the ideas of all the peoples within a nation, not merely the middle class and in particular, not merely the ruling aristocratic class. So that’s the story of Moravia and Wallachia.
Now the story of Transylvania is similar. They also broke out in rebellion against Austrian rule, but there’s a snag. Many Hungarians lived in Transylvania as well as Romanians. And during the year 1848, Hungary declared itself independent of Vienna and the Habsburg Empire. But although it was happy to be independent or striking for independence against Austria, it was not happy for Transylvania’s Romanians to strike an independence from itself, from Hungary. So the Transylvanian problem is twofold, to break with Austria, but then to break with Hungary. Well, we all know that Hungary’s revolution of 1848 failed and Austria regained control. And in regaining control of Hungary, it regained control of Transylvania, all ruled from Vienna. And then in 1867, the situation changed. In 1867, Franz Joseph’s government in Vienna decided to move towards what we would call a federal state. That is to say half the state will be based on Vienna, the Austrian half, and half the state would be based on Hungary, Hungarian half. And the former Austrian Empire is now called the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And Transylvania finds itself placed by Vienna under the control of Budapest. And the Hungarians adopt a process, “Magyarization,” that is to say making the Romanian Transylvanians into good Hungarians. They imposed the Hungarian language as the only language of teaching in schools. I guess there’s one example. it was an extraordinary difficult time for Transylvania, but there it is. That is where it found itself and that is where it’s going to remain until World War I and the destruction of the Austria-Hungarian Empire in its entirety. So they can’t break away, but the other two states, Romania and Wallachia, have an easier task. That is to say, to escape from Ottoman rule is easier because the Ottomans are in the words of the West, “The sick man of Europe.” Ottoman power in Eastern Europe is draining away.
And if Wallachia and Moravia can keep Russia at bay, they can get rid of the Ottomans and maybe they can unite themselves into one nation, which is called or going to be called Romania. A decade or so after the events of 1848, there was a great leap forward in the creation of modern Romania. It began in 1856. 1856 brought a Treaty of Paris to end the Crimean War. Crimean War, France, Britain, and the Ottomans fighting Russia. It brought a peace. But more than that, they decided at the Treaty of Paris, that is to say, France and Britain, that Moldavia and Wallachia would stay under the nominal control of Ottoman rule, but be granted independent constitutions and national assemblies. And they, France and Britain, would monitor that. And all of that happened by 1859. So what is now going on is, although the Ottomans, because they were the allies of Britain and France against the Russians and Britain and France can’t annoy the Ottomans too much because they need them as a barrier against Russian expansion. Nevertheless, they put the Ottomans in a box if you like, and say, “Yes, you’ll technically hold the sovereignty "of these two countries, but these two countries will be, "to all intents and purposes independent, "they will have independent institutions "and independent assemblies.” And so you can take those dates, 1856 and 1859, as important ones. And then things began to move really fast in Wallachia and Moravia.
In 1859, Alexandru Cuza, C-U-Z-A, becomes Prince of Moldavia, and a few weeks later, Prince of Wallachia. Now both Moldavia and Wallachia elected from their boyars, from their aristocracy, their princes, under, technically, the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. And so in this new relationship with Istanbul, in 1859, this man, Alexandru Cuza, C-U-Z-A, Cuza becomes Prince of Moldavia, and a few weeks later in January ‘59, he becomes Prince of Wallachia. He himself was a firm supporter of the union of these two Romanian provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Because he was prince of both states, he achieved, in effect, a de facto union. This had never happened before. They’d always had separate princes. Now they have one. Now that begins to look, does it not, like a unified country? Except, of course, there are separate constitutional arrangements in both. The Ottoman sultan refused to accept this. What they did is really, they didn’t accept it, but they couldn’t do anything about it. Their power is now so weakened. So in effect, Cuza doesn’t need to take too much notice of Istanbul. And as things turn out, he should have taken more notice of things nearer home. In 1862, that’s only three years after Cuza had become Prince of Wallachia and Prince of Moravia, in February, 1862, the two Ottoman states were united, Moravia and Wallachia ceased to exist and became Romania, and its capital was set as Bucharest. I should say a word, well, for most of my life, I suppose, I spelled Romania, R-O-U-M. We don’t spell it like that now, we spell it R-O-M. I’d be interested to hear from Americans how you spell it, but we call it Romania, R-O-M. And in fact, that is the English translation that the Romanian government uses about itself.
So we should use the term Romanian, R-O-M. But you will find in earlier books, R-O-U-M, it’s perhaps not an important point, but it is one that sometimes confuses people. And why Roman? Well, because they claim that they are the descendants of Roman Dacia, the ancient Roman Dacia. I put on my blog a book about the origins of Romanians. If you really want to drive yourself mad, buy the book and read it. But don’t blame me when men in white coats come to take you away. It is an extremely complex story and very difficult story. We don’t need to go into it. Cuza now sets about a number of reforms in this united state of Romania, still technically under the sovereignty of our friends in Istanbul. He had some success. He did all sorts of things to modernise, then he set about the question of land reform. Now what he did in terms of general reform, he introduced a criminal code and a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code of France. Culturally and economically and therefore politically, the Romanians were tied in to France. Cuza himself was a name put forward and accepted by Napoleon III. I did put a novel, or actually a trilogy of novels on my blog, which is Olivia Manning’s “The Balkan Trilogy,” which I’m sure lots of you have read. In Olivia Manning’s trilogy, you get that French vibe come over very strongly and you will need no telling, if you’ve read the novels, of the French influence within Romania. So he adopted an Napoleonic Code for both criminal and civil law. He made primary education a compulsory in 1864, and he made that education completely free. But he was hampered by lack of money and illiteracy wasn’t eradicated until communism. I’d mentioned before how communism dealt with illiteracy in Eastern Europe and Romania is no different.
But Cuza began a movement which was in step with European countries like France, and Britain, and Germany. He also founded two universities, the most important being the University of Bucharest. He developed Romanian army, a modern army, thanks to French involvement, French arms and French trainers. But what he couldn’t do and what brought him down, he wanted to introduce land reform. He’s a genuine reformer. He wanted to liberate the peasants of Romania from their last remaining feudal duties to their landlords. He wanted to redistribute land directly to the peasants. But in trying to do this, he was stopped by the conservatives and by the liberals who joined forces. The conservatives are aristocrats, the liberals are middle class in broad terms. They joined together and what they suggested was that they would end all feudal dues and responsibilities of the peasants, but the landlords would keep control to the title of all the land and it would not be distributed to the peasants. Cuza was not to be outdone. And his plan was to establish universal manhood suffrage together with the power of the prince to rule by decree. And he put that to a referendum and he won overwhelmingly. So with new power, he promulgated his new Agrarian law. Peasants received the title to the land that they worked, while landlords retained ownership of one third and were given money and land out of the government. That is the Crown’s Estates. What Cuza was trying to do was to build a bridge between himself and the peasantry to push Romania into the modern age. But by doing so, he alienated both the conservatives, aristocracy in the main, and liberals, middle class in the main. And that was a dangerous combination to alienate. In the end, in what the Romanians called the “monstrous coalition” of conservatives and liberals, a coup d'etat was carried out in February, 1866. Soldiers broke into the palace. Cuza was taken to the border and sent into exile, never to return. What happens now?
Not as you might expect, Romania has to keep on good terms with France, but also with Britain, if it is the deal with the combined threats of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. And it does so by recruiting a prince from outside of the country, in the same way that we saw last week, Albania recruited a foreigner to come in as king, and they chose a German, from the ruling house of Hohenzollern, the ruling house of Prussia. And his name was Prince Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. And he was proclaimed Prince as Carol I in April, 1866. And as he came in, he brought a constitution in at the same time. And because he’s brought a constitution in and he has all these connections with the powerful forces in Western Europe, to all intents and purposes now, the Ottoman Empire can’t do anything in this new Romania. He himself was a liberal, he’d been a supporter in Germany of the 1848 Revolution. He is no conservative. So he’s another liberal, but a liberal with contacts in the West, which are going to be extremely vital. His royal house is the reign in Romania right through until the communist regime of 1947-48. Incidentally, one oddity of democracy in Romania post the Ceausescus, the democracy that we look at Romania having today is that the royal family have, well, extraordinarily been put back as heroes of the country, founders of the country. And if you collect stamps, you know that Romania has issued countless numbers of stamps recognising the royal family and moments in the royal family’s history from 1866 and 1947, that is quite extraordinary. and more extraordinary is that when there was in 2006, like many countries had, we did in Britain, the 100 greatest Romanians of all time.
It was a sort of thing that went through televisions across Europe. Then, strangely enough, Carol I was voted the second greatest Romanian of all time behind their mediaeval hero, Stephen the Great. He was the second. The monarchy hasn’t been restored, but they’ve lifted it onto a plateau that, well, I don’t know whether it deserves or not, but they have in a post-Marxist world. So what did Carol do? Well, first of all, in 1881 he ceases to be prince and becomes king, King Carol I of Romania. He’s married to Elizabeth, a German princess. So it’s a very German house. And, I hope there are no Germans listening 'cause this is a stereotype, his wife said of him. He was so devoted to his job that he wore his crown even in bed. Well, of course he didn’t, but it’s a very nice phrase. It’s a sort of thing, I don’t know, it’s a sort of thing wives might say, isn’t it, gentlemen? Their marriage was difficult, but because it was an arranged marriage, later, they actually do become friends. They don’t have any children that survive, any boys that survive to take the crown. That’s another problem. But they are an interesting pair. In 1878, just before he becomes king at the Treaty of Berlin, which ends the Russian-Ottoman war, the Ottoman Empire finally, finally recognises the full independence of Russia, of Romania, sorry. That Istanbul recognises Bucharest in the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. So you could say we’ve got lots of dates where you can begin the story of modern Romania, but in a sense, 1878 is a really firm full stop. As Istanbul recognises Romania, it’s a great full stop to the earlier part of the story, which I’ve been telling you, over the last 30 years, from 1848 to 1878. But we all know what’s going to happen. We all know that in the Balkans, there are the two Balkan Wars of 1912, 1913 and then the First World War of 1914 to 1918. In the second Balkan War of 1913, Romania got involved with an invasion of Bulgaria in an attempt to seize some Bulgarian territory in which Romanians were still living.
The Romanian troops, having been trained and armed by the French, seize Sofia the capital of Bulgaria and forced a Treaty of Bucharest on the Bulgarians and thus expanded their territory at Bulgaria’s loss. More important, as one historian said, “It confirmed Romania’s dominant role in the region. Romania is now a force to be recognised with. But 1913 still turns, woo, rapidly turns 1940. Towards the end of his reign, Carol I realises, or realising that war is to come and seeing how Europe is dividing into two camps, a German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian camp, and a British, French and Russian camp. Now he’s German, his wife is German. He has no intention of joining Britain, France, and Russia. Russia is an enemy, France is a friend, and Britain is really on the edge. But instead he wants to join Germany in any future war. However, public opinion in Romania is against any alliance with Germany. And so Carol is forced to agree a secret treaty with Berlin that Romania will side with Germany at the point at which Russia attacks either itself or maybe Germany as well. The secret treaty was signed in 1883. Now Carol dies in the. beginning of August, 1914, just as World War I opens, he died on the 3rd of August, 1914. The council of the realm in Romania meets immediately and decides that they’re not going to follow the advice of the previous king to join with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Instead they decide neutrality is the best way forward.
And so it is neutrality that they follow, following the death of Carol I. Carol is succeeded by Ferdinand I, another member of the House of Hohenzollern. This time he’s a Catholic member of the Catholic branch of the family. He’s the nearest, well, he’s the nearest simply because his elder brother and his father turned down the chance to be Carol’s heir, the crown prince of Romania in the 1880s, leaving the second son Ferdinand. Now Ferdinand did not take it down and Ferdinand is much more in favour of a western alliance with Germany, France, and with Russia than he is with a German. He’s become more Romania basically, and therefore in tune with what the ordinary people are wanting from Romania. But perhaps it’s not surprising that he wanted to do that because many of you will know his wife was British. Marie, queen of Romania had been Maria of Edinburgh, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. She was also incidentally a granddaughter of Tsar Alexander II. So she has family ties to both the Romanovs over in Russia and the Saxe-Coburgs here in Britain. There’s no way. And she is, may I say, she is some determined lady, a very determined lady and pressures her husband to come into line and support the Western allies, and Ferdinand does that in August, 1916, two years after the war had begun. And Romania joins France, Britain and Russia in the war against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and indeed the Ottomans by this time. The aim, as they come into the war, is to seize Transylvania, with its large population of Romanians and add it to the Wallachia-Moravia Romania, making Romania a country of three and not two previous states. It advances into Transylvania by attacking the Austro-Hungarians who are there, but it also has a problem in the south because Bulgaria is allied to Germany.
So Romania finds itself fighting on two fronts, on one front in Transylvania against the Austria-Hungarian and on one front against the Bulgarians supported by the Germans. The Romanians launched this successful attack on Austria-Hungary. The Russians gave very little support, they expected more, their offensive was successful and they managed to occupy a third of the country of Transylvania. But then the German sent an army to support the Austro-Hungarians in Transylvania, and the Romanians began to be pushed back. Whilst on the southern frank, the Germans supported the Bulgarian army and the Romanians were forced to retreat toward Bucharest. They then had to fight a Battle of Bucharest against Bulgarians, Austro-Hungarians and Germans, and Bucharest fell in December, 1916. In 1917, Germany began a major offensive in the area, a Romanian army which was able to keep in the field even though the capitol had fallen, the whole country hadn’t fallen. And a Romanian army actually defeated the army of Germany and Austria-Hungary in three battles, and managed to take back a little of its own territory, which it had lost in December, 1916, when Bucharest fell. However, then disaster strikes from outside. In October, 1917, there’s the Marxist Revolution in Russia. Russia is no longer an ally as Lenin and Trotsky take Russia out of the war in the beginning of 1918. The Romanians believe that they’re forced into also making a treaty with the Germans as Lenin and Trotsky had done for the Russians. And so Romania comes out of the war. And then a strange thing happens, one day before the end of the war on the Western Front, the 11th November, 1918, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918, when Germany agrees to an armistice, a day before that, on the 10th of November, Romania declares war on Germany and comes back into the war. Why?
Because in the peace treaty that follows, or in the treaty that’s going to follow the defeat of Germany, it wants the allies, the Western allies, to hold to its promise to give them Transylvania. Well, in Paris where the treaty to end the war and set the new map of Europe in 1918, 1919 at Versailles, the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau, strongly objects to Bulgaria’s position. He said, "Look, "you deserted us in 1917, "why should we give you Transylvania? "You’ve been in the war 24 hours before it was over.” And he clearly had a case. The British are much more amenable as indeed are the Americans. There was a suggestion made that instead of dealing with the politicians that Romania has sent to Paris, they should deal with the queen of Romania, after all, she’s British, therefore she speaks English and therefore the Americans as well as the British think, this is a person we can do business with. And so they ask Marie of Romania whether she would come to Versailles to negotiate on behalf of Romania. She’s on the train before you can say, “Marie of Romania,” This is her chance. She’s some girl, is Marie of Romania. She is some person. And she turns up and bluntly she flirts with Clemenceau. Not someone I guess was easy to flirt with. But he comes under her influence and begins to listen to what she’s doing. She crosses to England while the negotiations are going on, stays at Buckingham Palace and meets as well as her family and her son who’s at Eaton. She meets important British politicians and that is very, very important because she meets Churchill, she meets the Astors.
So she meets Churchill, important, she meets the Astors, important, because they have political influence Back to Paris she goes, and she’s welcomed by the French populace as a great hero. She was called by the French, “the Exotic Queen.” Woodrow Wilson, America’s president, is himself personally not impressed by her. He’s not impressed because the anti-Semitic policies of the Romanians. Which he felt strongly about. She however, negotiates and wins Transylvania. So in effect, at the time it’s called Greater Romania, Moravia, Wallachia and Transylvania. It has been born. This is what it’s all been about since 1848 to bring Romanians. Now, now, now, now, Eastern Europe is complex and there are still Romanians living in other countries, like Hungary for example, and Bulgaria and Moldova. Eastern Europe is not clear in terms of who lives where because its history has been so changing over the centuries. But it is that point in 1918, 1919, that the story really ends with Transylvania now part of Greater Romania. It’s interesting to think of what she herself said. This is Marie, she said, “I’ve always had the joy of life, uncrushably, "a sort of inner sunshine that cannot be put out.” She was really tremendous. Some of you may possibly remember Dorothy Parker’s little verse. “Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, "a medley of extemporanea, "and love is a thing that can never go wrong, "and I am Marie of Romania.” It’s lovely that she finds a word to rhyme with Romania is “extemporanea,” that takes some doing. I’ve written on my notes, “Romania is now complete,” true, “but the story isn’t over.” Democratic Romania actually lies at the end of that century, not at the beginning because we are about to enter next week’s story with Romania under a fascist dictatorship and Romania subsequently under Marxist rule.
And there is, of course, the horror story of the Holocaust during the Second World War. I’m going to talk about those days of fascist and Marxist rule and the Second World War next week. But at least we can end the story on a positive note with democracy reestablished in the 1990s and through to the present day, when I said at the beginning, Romania is a member of NATO and is a member of the European Union. Now we’ll have to look at quite what that actually means. Many of us know that Romania is a desperately poor country still and it has dark corners still in it even though it’s a member of the European Union. I began, near the beginning at least of my talk, with a quotation from Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” because I wanted to end on a positive note and I’m going to end with a quotation from our present king when he was Prince of Wales in 2014. In 2014, Charles was awarded an honorary degree from the University of Bucharest for what he had done in Transylvania, not only in his estate, but putting money into a whole lot of projects. And in this speech in 2014, the king said, “Romania has become closer to my heart. "I’ve come to love Romania for its unique "and unspoiled natural beauty, "it’s fascinating patchwork of landscapes "and rural communities, each with their own diverse customs, "together with the astonishingly rich "and varied biodiversity of a countryside "that is truly a European and international treasure.”
To the Romanian leadership, political leadership, having Charles there and speeches like that is enormously useful to them on a diplomatic level. Charles went on to say, “However, even now tragically, "all too often with regions really remarkable, "historic architecture and rural settlements "seem subject to piecemeal destruction. "Largely it appears through lack of information "in the local areas.” One of those dark corners in Romania. “Romanians have much to be proud of, finished Charles, "and this pride should lead you to do everything possible "to protect your traditional way of life.” And that I believe is absolutely on the ball because preserving their traditional way of life will boost tourism as Charles himself has proved by his opening up of his own premises to bed and breakfast. So I hope that story, new I guess to many of you, now someone will say, “Well, I’m Romanian and I,” whatever. But I guess that story is new to many of you. I hope it was possible to follow it. Thank you for listening. I expect I’ve got questions. I’ve got some.
Q&A and Comments:
Michael says, “Queen Marie visited Baltimore post World War I, "visiting the Chair of Psychiatry Harry Stack Sullican,” is that Sullican, or is it Sullivan? “unannounced, when he arrived, he questioned, "Who is Queen of Romania,” to which he responded, “And how long have you felt that way?” I’m sorry, I misread that. But it’s a bit difficult because the wretched correcting of what we write was in full force.
Margaret says, “Roumania, Romania, "I noticed we used to say the former, but recently,” yes, “the change happened in 1975. "We should stick with Romania "because that is the English version that Romanians use.” Yes, I explained, Paul, the link with Rome is with Dacia, part of the Roman Empire. And that is where the Romanians claim that they derive from. It is not entirely historically correct, but that’s what is believed. And therefore that…
Q: “William, you are saying Moravia to Moldavia?”
A: Did I say, what have I said? I should have said Moldavia. You are right. Did I miss the “L,” I’m sorry if I said Moravia, I should have said Moldavia.
Q: Michael, “Why have Romania and Moldova evolved "as separate countries?
A: "They’re different peoples. "Moldovans are not Romanians, "although there are Romanians in Moldova.”
Simon, yes, that may be the title, but the copy I’ve got has an alternative title to that book. But maybe you found that that is the one that’s now, “Goodbye Eastern Europe” is at least the title. That is absolutely true. It’s the second line that in my version, pre-publication has two titles.
And you’re right, that’s how you spell his name, “Jacob Mikanowski.” Yes, I’m sorry.
No, Moldova is, no, no, no, Moldova is a separate country. My mistake was mispronouncing, I don’t why I did it. Moldavia and Moldova are different. Moldova is the country south of the Ukraine, and Moldavia with Wallachia and Transylvania is Romania. Moldova and Moldavia are different.
Q: “If the Ottoman Empire ruled these two provinces, "what was the religion and the language?”
A: No, no, it it wasn’t, they did not, like the Albanians, accept Islam and they did not accept Arabic. Their language is Romanian. They remained most of them Catholic.
And thank you, “In the U.S. it is,” Shelly, thank you, “it’s spelt Romania.” Yes, there was manufacturing, not much but there is, but the big issue, which I’m going to talk about next week, is the resource of oil. It’s interesting that Biden has spoken about Romanian oil as being important.
Q: “Why were liberals against land reform?”
A: Because they don’t want to give power to the peasantry, to the working class. That’s why. They want them to be kept in their place.
Q: Oh, George, thanks for this. “Two Were talking, one asked the other, ”'What is the difference between Hungarian and Romania?’
A: “‘I don’t know.’ ”‘Well, both would sell their mother.’ “‘So what is the difference?’ ”‘Well, the Romanian would deliver.’“
Oh dear, oh dear, dear, dear. Elliot, "What was the role of ?” We will come, in due course to that.
Vicky Spaulter, “Well, I know this joke "as what is the difference "between a Galician and a Romanian?” Yes, the jokes were always the same. It’s always about nearby countries.
Thank you, Rita. That’s nice.
Oh, Karen, “One grandfather was born there in ‘66,” great year, “and left around 1904, "the other grandfather left in 1913 "when drafted into the Romanian army.” Please Karen, make sure that when Trudy is talking about Jews in Romania, you tell her that story.
Q: Rita, “Could I have a reference to King Charles’s quote?”
A: Well, I simply put, I simply googled “Prince Charles + Romania + quote,” and it’ll come up. Yes.
Now that’s interesting, Lilian, “My sister was in Moldova,” the country south of Ukraine, not Moldavia, not Romania. “My sister was in Moldova four years ago "for a film project research.
"Unfortunately, Russians over the years have erased "much of their history and ratified their identity.” Absolutely correct. And that is the worry that if Russia moves south in Ukraine, it would move into Moldova and in fact might well be welcomed in Moldova. And that is a major, major problem for the West. That is why we need to stick together in massive support for Ukraine. Whatever the faults of Ukraine, we do not want Russia to run rampant in Eastern Europe because they will eventually hit a EU country and we will have no choice, or a NATO country like Romania. If they hit Romania, then NATO has to respond. And we are into World War III. We have to support.
Q: “How much of a factor is it the language is not Slavic?”
A: Yes, it isn’t Slavic, it’s Romance language based upon Latin, hence this business about the link back to Rome. Yes, that is a factor. It makes them different, absolutely.
People are making all sorts of interesting comments, which we’ve covered, I think, or I’m going to cover.
“At the end of World War I, "Romania gained not only, "but also the Bukovina.” They did indeed, Erica. And that is not an error on my part. It was a distinct choice, not to mention the Banat or Bukovina, because I thought if I did so it will complicate the story even more.
If you want to know about the detail, then do get hold of a copy of Keith Hitchins’s “A Concise History of Romania.” You are absolutely right. I just wanted to keep the story as simple and as followable as possible. So my mistake, mea culpa , but not mea maxima culpa, I fear. I hope.
Francois , oh, thank you so much. “The Balkan Trilogy is a fabulous read.” I’m glad someone else has read it and thinks the same as I do. I read it a long, long time ago, but it’s a super, super book. Well, because Romania had helped them with their army, with their training, with their navy, and with trade, and because it’s a Romance language, all of that. France was very involved, historically, with Romania.
Q: Oh, Shelly, you ask a question that will take me a month to answer. “What are the differences "between various Eastern European ethnic groups "and countries?
A: "Is it religious?” Sometimes. “Is it linguistic?” Sometimes. Is it religious? Yes. Between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in terms of Christianity, also with Islam. And previously anyhow, with Judaism. “Is it European ethnic groups?” Yes, Romanians regard themselves as quite distinct and they’re not Slavic people as somebody wrote above, absolutely correctly. And then you get into severe difficulties between say, Serbs and Russians, or Ukrainians and Russians, indeed. But the truth of the matter is it’s how people see themselves as well. Ukrainians do not see themselves as Russians and now never will. But in the past they did see themselves as Russian.
Q: Oh, Gerald, “Sorry, came in late today.” No, always welcome. “Some years ago I was filming Bucharest, "the owner of the company said "that Jews were brought into Romania by the Romans. "Could this it be a possibility?”
A: I think the answer is yes to that, but you can find, yeah, I think the answer is definitely yes, but Trudy will give you the proper answer. But I’m sitting my neck out and saying yes. Yes,
Jacqueline again, you’ve added another layer of complication, which I was anxious to avoid. “Russia already has a foothold in Moldova, "the country’s out in Ukraine "as they have an army in nextdoor Transnistria.” Yeah, that’s true. And Transnistria isn’t a recognised country by the world. The whole of that area is as confusing in 2023 as it was in 1923, 1823, 1723 or any date in history. The only way, well, sorry, the only way I as a teacher, maybe other teachers can do different, I as a teacher can cope is to try and simplify the story without corrupting the story. I hope not to corrupt it, but I do simplify it on occasions because otherwise, I think it becomes extraordinarily difficult to follow. You may know all about Transnistria, but there are other people who probably haven’t an idea. I collect coins as well as stamps and I’ve got a whole collection of coins from Transnistria, which aren’t worth very much, but I’m hoping that one day they will be.
And Jacqueline you also say, you can have a gold star from me as well because you say “Balkan Trilogy are excellent books.”
Erica, you’re making it, oh gosh, this is another extremely good point. Erica writes, “The food is similar throughout the region, "thanks to the Turks.” Now there is a whole realm of history, which in the present day looks at the history of food. And you are absolutely right about the Turkish influence on food. And culturally food is important. Christians and Jews know the importance of food because it plays a large part in religious faith, but it also plays a part in terms of culture, and whom we are and what we eat. And Erica, that is such a good point. Maybe one day I shall be allowed to talk to you about the cultural history of foods across Europe. Can you ask Trudy?
Q: Marjorie Kravitz asked, “What’s a Sudit?”
A: I guess that’s how you pronounce it, “mean?”
“My grandmother’s birth registration shows her "as a Sudit of Austria 1889.” I mean, I could look it up on Google. In fact, I will do so when I finish. But I assume, it’s a way of describing, I don’t know. It must be a way of describing Jews in some way and I do not know what it means. I really am sorry. Do ask Trudy or simply Google the word and you’ll come up with it.
Oh dear, Veronica. Oh dear. Oh, that’s nice. I don’t know that I should accept it, I think.
Is that not called corruption? We’re so into corruption in Britain now with the former prime minister that I dare not say, yes.
Q: “Is it possibly Sudetenland for Sudit? "Someone from Sudetenland?”
A: You may be right, but I simply have never heard it. And you may be right, it may be a shorthand of Austrian officials. I don’t know.
Oh yeah, a Romanian sculptor says, “Gerald, I knew in South Africa you used to tease me "that is not Israeli, but probably Romania.”
So Rita, can you say, 'cause I can’t look it up while I’m looking at questions, can you say whether it’s what John has put after you, “It must mean Sudete + the Sudetenland.” Is that right? So can somebody, Rita can you just slip on what it is you found? Because I can’t look up while I’m online 'cause I shall miss other people’s questions. Is it possible just to say very quickly? Oh, bless you.
“The Suditi, plural of Sudit, Romanian language, "from Italian suddito, meaning 'subject’ or ‘citizen’ "were inhabitants of the Danubian Provinces "or Wallachia and Moldavia, "who, for the latter stage of the 18th,” yes, yes, yes. Oh, ah. Oh, right. So it’s a Romania word for inhabitants of the Danubian provinces. I did not know that. My great apologies. I did not know that.
Princess Claudia Rhedey says, “ from Transylvania "was King Charles’s great-great-grandmother.” Wow, I did not know that either. Isn’t it fantastic what you learn? You don’t think Charles has inherited any genes from Count Dracula, do you?
“Sudetenland,” says Veronica, “is the German part of Transylvania.” Right, we got it. We got there, between us we got there. Well, between you, you got me there.
So thanks very much for that, I think. Gosh, look at the time as well. Yes. Thank you, everyone. It was really interesting, the points people made tonight. Thank you so much. It’s been really, really interesting. Thanks.