i read your history thread and disagree. romania didn't hold onto "half" of it's country in ww1. it lost bucharest in a few months, the romanian governemt fleeing to jassy. the russian army( the 4th army is what i read about) fled before the major forces of the germany army could be brought to bear. and by the spring of 1917, the russian army was facing serious discipline problems and revolution. the russians pulled out, a the rmanians couldn't survive fighting the germans and austrians alone and signed the "peace of buchrest" which gave away alot of territory to bulgaria and control of part of the daube to the central powers. romania was knocked out of the war. gone. in the last 3 weeks of ww1, with the germans and ayustrians losing, romaina renounced the treaty, re-entered the war, but by then the war was already over. romania WAS over run, i don't agree with your version of history at all. it sounds like the history books in your country are attempting to revise history to save face for the humiliating defeat the romanians suffered in ww1. we studied the romanian front at my university and what we were taught was not what you were taught.
hmmm you sure you were paying attention?
besides there is plenty of information on this issue on the net, as well as there are eyewitness acounts (Rommel's "Infantry attacks" for example).
if something is taught at university it doesn't make it automatically correct (assuming you reproduced the lessons properly).
let's define overrun first:
for me an army counts as overrun when the bespoken army is virtually taken out of battle, cut of or retrating in disorder, shortly unable to resume organized combat. while certain elements of the romanian army were destroyed 1916, it cannot be said about the entire army. the rest managed to extract themselves and retreatet over the Sereth river a line which they held until armistice. it is true that they recived russian reinforcements but those were late to arrive.
now if you use a map (also available online, for example at mapquest.com) and take a look at the Sereth river and the eastern carpathians, you will notice that around 45-50% (visual estimation) of the country was stil under control of romanian forces.
now if you go a bit further with your research and read Rommel's book, you will find the description of a romanian counteroffensive in 1917 which broke through austr-hungarian lines. while this action was limited compared to say, the brussilov offensive, verdun or mind you, 3rd ypres, it shows that the army was still in position (late 1917 that is!) to perform a successfull combat operation. all this during a period in which, as you said, the russian army faced several discipline problems (nothing new by 1917). but the peace of bucharest (may 7th 1918) was signed after the treaty of brest litovsk (march 3rd 1918). the romanian government gave in after the russians pulled out, because it is obvious that any further resistence would have been useless.
with the germans and ayustrians losing, romaina renounced the treaty, re-entered the war, but by then the war was already over.
one of the terms of the 11.11.1918 armistice was, that the treaty of brest-litovsk and all other treaties signed by the central powers were void.
it sounds like the history books in your country are attempting to revise history to save face for the humiliating defeat the romanians suffered in ww1. we studied the romanian front at my university and what we were taught was not what you were taught.
it's not "his" version of the history, it is what various sources (non romanian) confirm. you might want to double check your sources, information on this issue is abundantly available now (thank God!)