Character of the Romanian Army

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
prune
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 12:32
Location: Bucharest

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by prune » 18 Nov 2008 12:15

There may be no such thing as the 'third world' if the undevelopment or underdevelopment of certain areas or countries wouldn't serve the interests of some 'first world' countries, which involve economic exploitation of labour, resources and markets.
This remnant of cold war thinking, the demeaning and racist 'third world' label, is a mental construct by those 'orthodox' economists and political scientists whose ideological terms of reference have had the effect of identifying it as a geographically locatable set of areas inhabited by 'backward' peoples and static economies, and which is often defined it in terms of what is is not, rather than in terms of what it is... Yet it is a broad brushstroke to paint a picture of what living conditions in those areas are.

Maria
Sid Guttridge wrote: Hi Alecu,

If it was that easy to produce an industrial society, there would be no such thing as the Third World!

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Nov 2008 13:11

Hi Prune,

Call it what you will - Third World, undeveloped, underdeveloped, developing, or whatever - the condition of limited or absent industrialisation and the difficulties in becoming industrialised remain the same.

Nor is it a racist construct as it includes countries in South America that are at least as "white" as the USA or the USSR. All these labels are attempts to describe socio-economic conditions, not racial ones.

Have you something to offer that is on thread?

Cheers,

Sid.

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 07 Jan 2009 15:12

Victor wrote:Then, Patzinak, we have to agree that we disagree. Call it an engineer's bias, but accounting and management are not what I consider "technical skills". They don't require the same amount of expertise and experience and a part of the problems were because of dishonesty, rather than incompetence in accounting and administration.

There were two problems plaguing the Romanian supply system:
- dependence on the German supply system
- poor organization, corruption and petty interests of own logistics personnel

The first meant that German supply trains usually had priority and that the problems encountered by the Germans (different railway gauge, lack of rolling stock, poor roads) were also valid for the Romanians. The second was the Romanian contribution to an already grim situation. Many made profits out of selling the soldiers rations on the black market Pick up Paul Moraru's Armata lui Stalin vazuta de romani, Ed. Militara, 2006, which, despite the title, contains many reports on the state of mind and problems of the common Romanian soldier. The difference in attitude and morale between well-fed soldiers and those with reduced rations was big.

Other problems from the same league:
- not enough proper proper clothing, either due to corruption or lack of resources
- cigarettes, same situation with the food rations
- beatings by the officers
- delays in obtaining vacations
- too much time on the front line, while others could buy their way out of serving in the army

Most of these were not the result of lack of technical skills, but of lack of common sense, a problem very common in today's Romania, which has a higher literacy rate and much more inhabitants with "technical" skills (including accountants).

Romanian soldiers did not require much to make them happy (a feature observed also during WW1). When the soldiers were fed well, clothed properly, treated like human beings and went home on leave when they were supposed to, they would fight well, despite other problems regarding equipment. if you really want to discuss the character of the Romanian Army, these should be a part of it.
Correct, so far. Any army haved ( and most probably have ) some good parts, and some bad parts, and have diferent units with diferent value. Ofcourse, per total, one armies are better then others. The fighting skills or romanian soldiers was diferent from units to units, with ones on top, like mountain hunters, where the level of "camaradery" and training was way above other units, to some other units with less time of training, and less "war material". As well, the enviroment of such mountain troops acting, and even the background and selection of their members make them more adaptable, more agile, more inventive and inovative and put them in the "league" of the best troops of WW II ( they defeated after august 1944 the german gebirgjagers too ). They was not just the ones who reached the fartest point in East, but the ones who provided cover for Axis troops when retreated, and especialy when evacuated Crimeea, beeing over most of german or soviet units as combat qualities in mountain terrain. But, as Victor pointed, some drawbacks existed, especialy to other troops, related more to technicall skills or degree of cantity and quality of weapons they haved, but to quality of training or logistics too. However, as "pure" combat qualities the romanian soldiers ( and especialy ones from elite units ) was very good ( not long ago, Napoleon himself sayied after he meet with a romanian regiment called "dayma" by frenchs, in north of Italy, that if he haved couple regiments like that, in couple days he conquered Viena ), but lowered in part by poor cantity and quality of weapons they haved, and by some poor tactics and conceptions, some outdated for that time period, or inadequated.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Jan 2009 16:29

Hi Udar,

I think you may be confusing "Daymar" with "Dalmatian". The Napoleon's Dalmatian units were mostly Croat, not Romanian.

Cheers,

Sid.

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 16 Jan 2009 15:56

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Udar,

I think you may be confusing "Daymar" with "Dalmatian". The Napoleon's Dalmatian units were mostly Croat, not Romanian.

Cheers,

Sid.
Hi Sid
I dont think i confusing. From what i read, and i hope i am not mistake, it was said that a romanian regiment belonged to austrian army ( in those times Transilvania was still in Habsburg "hands" ) stopped the advance of french army in northern Italy, army who was under Napoleon command, who was general at that time. The romanian regiment blocked for some 3 days the french advance, on a bridge, to give time to austrian army to retreat and regroup, and was need that Napoleon himself, at some point, to lead the atack, and push back the romanians. French didnt know who they was, or if they was romanians, but named them after they "battle cry" ( in fact more an encourragment ), "dai ma" in romanian language ( something like "hit him" in english ). But this is just an episode, from a time when fire power was still combined in a large degree with hand to hand fights, where those peoples excele, so the technical rigging was not yet so decisive

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Jan 2009 12:53

Hi Udar,

In the Napoleonic Wars the Austrian Army had Hungarian regiments with distinctive blue leggings, but no designated Romanian units. It is possible that Hungarian units raised in Transilvania may have contained Romanian-speakers, but the language of instruction and command would have been Hungarian.

I don't recognize the incident as you describe it. Have you no time or place? What is your source?

Cheers,

Sid.

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 17 Jan 2009 17:07

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Udar,

In the Napoleonic Wars the Austrian Army had Hungarian regiments with distinctive blue leggings, but no designated Romanian units. It is possible that Hungarian units raised in Transilvania may have contained Romanian-speakers, but the language of instruction and command would have been Hungarian.

I don't recognize the incident as you describe it. Have you no time or place? What is your source?

Cheers,

Sid.
Hi Sid

I dont say it was in the time when Napoleon was emperor, but in times when he was general, and fought in northern Italy. I didnt find any internet source in english, so sorry for that. Transilvania in that times was under austrian control, not hungarian, and was 2, i think, romanian regiments ( meaning having just ethnic romanians, with an austrian comanding officer, i think ), in austrain army. The battle i said was at Arcolli, for a bridge, durring Napoleon campagne in 1796-1797. French believed it was a "german" ( austrian ) regiment, and called them "dayma" after their battle cry ( from "dai ma" in romanian ). Not sure however how acurate is since i cant find other sources, there are maybe in french, but for sure was a romanian transilvanian regiment.

User avatar
Walhalla
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 03:53
Location: Hungary

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by Walhalla » 18 Jan 2009 01:00

Did those two Romanian regiments surrender to the French and fought the Austrians later on?
Just curious.
"Give me back my Mountains!" Albert Wass
"To retreat is impossible, to surrender is unthinkable!" Janos Hunyadi-Battle of Varna 1444

User avatar
KACKO
Member
Posts: 572
Joined: 31 Jan 2005 16:34
Location: Slovakia

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by KACKO » 18 Jan 2009 04:56

Walhalla wrote:Did those two Romanian regiments surrender to the French and fought the Austrians later on?
Just curious.
Probably not, during Napoleonics wars mostly Germans were switching sides. :D

User avatar
DenesBernad
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 18:04
Location: Hungary

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by DenesBernad » 18 Jan 2009 09:28

Walhalla wrote:Did those two Romanian regiments surrender to the French and fought the Austrians later on?
Just curious.
Those were NOT Rumanian regiments. As Sid said, the majority of the soldiers may have been Rumanian speaking, but that doesn't make the unit "Rumanian".

Dénes

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 18 Jan 2009 16:00

Walhalla wrote:Did those two Romanian regiments surrender to the French and fought the Austrians later on?
Just curious.
:) , no. It was just one of those regiments who fighted there, and, it was used in the same manner as later romanian mountain troops was used in Crimeea, in WW II, to cover the back of fleeing german troops, who was not able to do it by themselves, but carefuly pray themselves later as the best of the best and tryied to diminsh the importance of others. Unfortunately for them, such silly propaganda didnt really help them on the battlefield, and they haved their asses kicked by the ones who they believed are "inferiors".

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 18 Jan 2009 16:06

DenesBernad wrote:
Walhalla wrote:Did those two Romanian regiments surrender to the French and fought the Austrians later on?
Just curious.
Those were NOT Rumanian regiments. As Sid said, the majority of the soldiers may have been Rumanian speaking, but that doesn't make the unit "Rumanian".

Dénes
It was 2 regiments, belonged to habsburg army, and composed only by romanian ethnics from Transilvania, and considered "border" regiments, and elite ones. Thats why i said romanians

User avatar
DenesBernad
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 18:04
Location: Hungary

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by DenesBernad » 18 Jan 2009 16:24

Radu, that's exactly why I wrote that they were NO Rumanian regiments - as it's misleading - but rather Austrian, with most of the enlisted men Rumanian speaking, which in this case is irrelevant.

For example, I, an ethnic Hungarian but Rumanian citizen, when I was conscripted in the Rumanian army, I wasn't a Hungarian soldier, but rather a Rumanian one, regardless of my mother tongue. Am I right or wrong?

Dénes

udar
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Sep 2004 19:13
Location: Romania

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by udar » 18 Jan 2009 18:36

DenesBernad wrote:Radu, that's exactly why I wrote that they were NO Rumanian regiments - as it's misleading - but rather Austrian, with most of the enlisted men Rumanian speaking, which in this case is irrelevant.

For example, I, an ethnic Hungarian but Rumanian citizen, when I was conscripted in the Rumanian army, I wasn't a Hungarian soldier, but rather a Rumanian one, regardless of my mother tongue. Am I right or wrong?

Dénes
Salut Denes

Well, is just partialy correct. Those 2 regiments was entirely composed by romanians ( with only one exception, an austrian officer ), but you was not in a unit made entirely by ethnic hungarians, but a mix of romanians ( who was the majority ) and hungarians ethnics ( maybe saxons too, or so ). Yes, those regiments belonged to austrian army, but for ex. you cannt say that Gurkas regiment from british army is made from english. Is a regiment made by nepalese peoples, who are in british army. That was the situation too with those 2 regiments we speak about.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Character of the Romanian Army

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Jan 2009 19:10

Hi udar,

We need to know precisely which two regiments you are talking about.

I have a couple of Austrian Army orders of battle for the period. If you can specify which regiments you are referring to, then we might make some progress. However, I am sure that Austria had no designated Romanian regiments then.

I have never noted any mention of Romanians at Arcoli.

On the information available at present, this story seems circumstantially unlikely.

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”