Category Archives: Translations in English

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (7)

Odessa – Dalnic Massacre

from 22 to 25 October 1941,

commanded by Marshal

Victor Ion Antonescu,

with more than

38,000 killed civilian Jews

 

Ion Victor Antonescu, Romania, the Conductor of Romania from 4 September 1940 till 23 August 1944, the Romanian version of the function of “Fuhrer” of Germany, held by Adolf Hitler, was a controversial figure, who was shot by the guards at Jilava Penitentiary, on 1 June 1946, at 18.03, following the death sentence for war crimes, sentence decided on May 17, 1946, by the People’s Court in Bucharest. Along with Ion Antonescu, following the same process, were shot Mihai Antonescu, Vice President of the Council of Ministers of Romania, Minister of Foreign Affairs during the period June 29, 1941 – August 23, 1944, Constantin Z. Vasiliu, Romanian Gendarmerie Commander between September 9, 1940 – 23 August, 1944, and Gheorghe Alexianu, the governor of Transnistria during the period August 19, 1941 – January 29, 1944.

These sentences were confirmed, with some amendments, on December 5, 2006, by Bucharest Court of Appeal, later, on May 6, 2008, reconfirmed definitively without amendments, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

On 22 June 1941, at dawn, began the Operation Barbarossa, of  concomitant attacking of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by seven countries, five of which having at that time a common border with the only european communist state, these countries being Germany, Finland, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary. They were joined by Italy and Spain.

In the same day, from the part of Romania, General Ion Antonescu gave the following order: “Soldiers, I order you: cross the Prut, crush enemy from the east and north, emancipate from the red yoke of Bolshevism our invaded brothers!” This order meant much hope for Romanian, of recovery of lost territories after the Ultimatum given by Moscow, on June 26, 1940.

The proper offensive of Romanian Army began on July 3, and the liberation of Bessarabia, including Herta Region and Northern Bukovina ended on July 24, 1941. There were registerd 4,271 Romanian soldiers dead.

On July 27, 1941, Adolf Hitler asked Antonescu to cross the Dniester and administer the territories between the Dniester and Bug. On July 31, Ion Antonescu replied to the affirmatively.

The battle of Odessa was held between August 8 and 11 October 1941, the largest victory with a majority Romanian participation in the Second World War. In this battle died in all 11,046 Romanian soldiers and officers.

Meanwhile, on August 22, King Mihai I raised General Ion Antonescu to the rank of active marshal. Previously, on May 19, 1941, the Conductor Ion Antonescu accorded the honorary degree of marshal to the King Mihai I.

If at the fighting between the Pruth and Dniester the the morale of Romanian military was at its peak, in the battle for Odessa this estate of spirits was incomparably lower. It was there, that, to correct this aspect, by the Order of August 14, 1941, General Josif Iacubovici, Minister of National Defence in the period January 27 – September 22, 1941, introduced corporal punishment of 25 lashes, imposed those who err seriously about soldierly duties.

On September 9, 1941, General Nicolae Ciupercă resigned as commander of the Fourth Army, participating in the battle for Odessa, just to protest against the military campaign over Dniester, initiated by Ion Antonescu.

Against the armed passage of Dniester pleaded and other generals, like Constantin Ilasievici, Nicolae Radescu and Florea Tenescu.

The passage of Dniester has been criticized by the traditional parties. For example, on July 18, 1941, Iuliu Maniu, president of the National Peasant Party,  implored Ion Antonescu: “We need to spare our army for our Romanian purposes, which are many and great and of tragic actuality for very close times”.

Ion Antonescu answered them all: “I can not betray Hitler, I gave him my word as an officer.” This oath of allegiance took place on January 14, 1941, when Ion Antonescu was in Berlin to ask Hitler for help to remove the government of the legionaries of Horia Sima, Vice President of the Council of Ministers during the period September 14, 1940 – January 21, 1941, in the General Ion Antonescu government (2).

In a letter of 31 July, 1941 addressed to Hitler, Antonescu said: “I will go till the end into the action we started on the East against the great enemy of civilization, of Europe andof  my country: Russian Bolshevism. Therefore I do not put any conditions and I do not at all discuss this military cooperationing”

Besides the low morale of the soldiers in the battle for Odessa appeared and the crass incompetence of some senior officers of the Romanian Army, as was the case of General Ion Glogojanu.

On October 17, 1941, Ion Glogojanu was appointed commander of the Military Command in Odessa. He has been warned by  Gherman Pantea, the new mayor of Odessa, that he learned from a Russian woman about the mining of building of the former headquarters of N.K.V.D. (n.a. People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) Regardless of this information, Ion Glogojanu decided that the headquarters of the Military Command in Odessa to be on the street Friedrich Engels at number 40, which is precisely in the building of the former headquarters of N.K.V.D.

The result was that on October 22, at 17.45, the building at number 40 on the street Friedrich Engels, jumped into the air. 79 soldiers died, including 75 Romanians and four Germans, among them were the General Ion Glogojanu, Colonel Ionescu Mangu, Captain Walter Kern, Captain Walter Reichert, commander Herwart Schmidt. To these were added a number of 43 Romanian soldiers wounded. Searches through the rubble lasted two days, the lifeless body of Ion Glogojanu being discovered on 23 October, at 13.10.

From the stenogram of 13 November, 1941, of the Council of Ministers, it is resulting that Ion Antonescu ordered, as “drastic and immediate” reprisal, the killing of 200 Jews for each killed Romanian and of 100 Jews for each wounded Romanian. That means, by a simple calculation, 15,000 civilian Jews to be killed for those 75 dead military Romanians and 4,300 civilian  Jews to be killed for those wounded military Romanians, giving a total of 19,300 civilian Jews to be killed.

But, from contemporary accounts, these numbers were much higher. In the days 22 – 25 October 1941, strictly in Odessa were killed by shooting, hanging or exploding a number of over 18,000 killed Jews, because for the day October 23 was circulated a number of more than 5,000 and for the day of October 25 a number of more than 13,000 killed Jews in Odessa. Almost there was no pole or tree in Odessa from which were not a hanged Jew. Nine warehouses in port, full of Jews, in a indescribable crowding, were set on fire and machine – gunned.

In a letter of the mayor Gherman Pantea to Ion Antonescu, it is described a nightmare picture of Odessa from the day October 23: “Marshal, I woke up in the morning, having in the face a horrrible scene, namely: on all streets and on all corners there were hung four, five people, and the frightened population fleeing the city in all directions. Outraged, I asked who committed this barbarianism, this shame that we will never wash in the eyes of the civilized world. The people in right to answer said me they know nothing. On the other hand, on the walls of Odessa, appeared an unsigned communiqué, of the Military Command, ordering all Jews to leave the city on the day of 23 October and to go in convoys to Dalnic. The Jews, terrified, abandoned their homes and belongings and headed in thousands to Dalnic, and the remaining population from the city has began a total pillage of homes”.

The massacre has continued in Dalnic, a small locality, situated just three kilometers from Odessa. More than 20,000 Jews from Odessa were in convoy, escorted by Romanian troops to Dalnic, where they were imprisoned in four depots. On October 24, three depots were burned and machine – gunned, and one was mined and exploded at the same time, 17.45, when blew the building in which was established the Military Command in Odessa.

Thus, at least 38,000 civil Jews from Odessa were killed in what rightly has been called “the Massacre in Odessa”.

The victims of the explosion of October 22, 1941 were buried in a cemetery, hastily aranged in the Park “Taras Shevchenko”, in central Odessa, close to the Black Sea. This cemetery has been razed to the ground immediately after the Red Army entered Odessa, the fights taking place between 6 and April 19, 1944.

Ion Antonescu, being at this cemetery, when he arrived at the tomb of Ion Glogojanu, said: “You fought like a hero for Odessa and died in Odessa like a silly”.

In Romania, the “final solution”, envisaged by Adolf Hitler for Jews, was replaced by “cleansing of the land”, used by Ion Antonescu. When arrived the turn of Romania to send Jews to the crematoria of Auschwitz, which until then were used at full capacity to implement the “final solution” in Germany and Poland, Ion Antonescu was opposed, even if the first train sets were ready to go. This decision of Ion Antonescu seems surprising after a policy of an active anti-Semitism, if it is not taken into consideration the time of this position, on October 13, 1942, that is to say, after the start of the battle of Stalingrad, held in the period August 23, 1942 – 2 February, 1943. Already, on September 5, 1942, Stalin felt enough prepared and approved the first counterattack with the Army XXIV and the Army LXVI.

Although it was rejected, the Soviet counterattack was a signal for Ion Antonescu to suddenly become cautious with the extermination of the Jews. Also, he knew the best that he and the  Army III and the Army IV, from the Romanian front of Stalingrad were not properly equipped against of an attack with tanks from the the part of Soviets. And of what he did fear he did  not escape, on November 19, 1942 began the great counteroffensive of Soviets, who pierced the front just where they were placed the two Romanian armies, which did represent one of the deciding factors that led to the loss of the war by Germany and its allies.

It is estimated that by the refusal of Ion Antonescu, on October 13, 1942, it was avoided the killing of an additional number of  400,000 Jews in Romania. “Cleansing the land,” Antonescu version of the “final solution” of Hitler, was not applied until the end.

Even so, the lowest number, advanced by specialists, of Jews, executed in Romania of Antonescu, especially during 22 to 25 January, 1941, of the Pogrom in Bucharest, during 27 to 29 June, 1941, of the Pogrom in Iasi, between 22 to 25 October, 1941, of the Massacre of Odessa, during December 21, 1941 to January 8, 1942, of the Massacre in Bogdanovca, was 213,000, while at the Holocaust History Museum, located in Tel Aviv, is mentioned the number of 500,000.

Next, I quote from what I wrote in the book “Letters of a Dniesteran – Tiszan Man”: “The existence of the Holocaust in Romania was officially recognized on November 11, 2004, when the report of the International Commission for Studying  the Holocaust in Romania, led by Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate for Peace, was declared «state document» and homologated in its entirety. As a result, on October 9, 2005, it was opened in Bucharest the National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania, and 9 October was declared the National Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust in Romania!”

 

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

 

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

 

 

 

 

 

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (6)

Iuliu Hossu,

the “herald” of the Great Union

closed in Sighet,

in the “dejist” communist regime,

under house arrest until his death,

in the “ceausist” communist regime

 

The Romanians had throughout their history a range of astral moments, not too long, from which, from the far shines the Great Union, the creation of the state Greater Romania, of enrollment nearly plenary of  the territory in which the Romanians have been in majority. On December 1, 1918, in Alba Iulia, it was met the Grand National Assembly of Romanians from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, made up of 600 elected members from the 120 electoral districts as they were established in 1910, to which were added 628 representatives of various cultural, professional and social organizations. In a general enthusiasm, the Great National Assembly of Romanians voted for the union with Romania of the provinces Banat, Crisana, Maramures, Satu Mare and Transylvania, all integrated abusively in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, officially dissolved on November 3, 1918, when the Hungarian government, led by Mihály Károly denounced this union with Austria. The same day, in front of the crowd gathered in Alba Iulia, “The Unification Resolution” was red by Iuliu Hossu, Greek-Catholic bishop of Gherla.

It is important to note that on March 27, 1918, the Council of the Country in Chisinau proclaimed the union of Bessarabia, including Hertza Region, with Romania, and on November 28, 1918 National Council in Chernivtsi decided by a large majority the union of Bukovina with Romania.

The official recognition of the Great Union was carried by the Treaty of Trianon, on June 4, 1920, in the case of Banat, Crisana, Satu Mare, Maramures and Transylvania, by the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919, in the case of Bessarabia, including Herta Region, and by the Treaty of Saint Germain, on September 10, 1919, in the case of Bukovina, and, also, by the Treaty of Neuilly, on November 27, 1919, in the case of Cadrilater, a territory annexed on August 10, 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest, but lost on May 7, 1918, following the Treaty of Buftea-Bucharest.

The Great Union was not celebrated as it deserves by the communist regime, led by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, and Iuliu Hossu was a forbidden name. The communist regime, led by Nicolae Ceausescu, gave a somewhat ampleness for this event only in 1968, but the history was again falsified, accrediting the idea that Vasile Goldis red “The Unification Resolution”.

Even the poet Adrian Paunescu, the initiator and the leader of the Cenacle “The Flame”, in those 1615 music and poetry shows, held from 17 September, 1973 to 15 June, 1985, shows without wooden language of communist propaganda, but with tributes strained, often subtly, addressed to Nicolae Ceausescu, did not recall to “the generation in jeans” about the Great Union and less about Iuliu Hossu.

The reason of this keeping under silence of the Great Union was the afraid of the “dejist” and “ceausist” nomenclature to not offend the leaders of the Union of Soviet  Socialist Republics, the communist empire in which was included Bessarabia and northern half of Bukovina, Romanian provinces raped from the Greater Romania after the Moscow Ultimatum, from 26 June, 1940, territorial rape strengthened by the Peace Treaty of Paris, signed on February 10, 1947, followed by the Border Treaty between Romanian and Soviet governments.

After the Romanian Revolution of December 1989, the Great Union began to be celebrated with due respect to this great height fulfillment of the dream of centuries of the Romanian people.

However, even under the new circumstances, the name of Iuliu Hossu has been still held in silence, done forget. After 2007, after I wrote the book “Over Pruth and further…” I was invited to participate in numerous events held on the occasion of December, 1 in Bacau, where I did not hear even once uttered this name. In Alba Iulia, within the same type of manifestation, but with the participation of representatives from all Romanian communities from diaspora, I noticed that also there was omitted this name, even Adrian Paunescu, the principal animator of the event, has not remembered him.

As an aside, Adrian Paunescu, born on July 20, 1943, in Bessarabia, specifically in the village Copaceni, Balti county, now district in the Republic of Moldavia, has not written any poem about Bessarabia during the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, about whom, in the poem of 14 stanzas “I Thank You”, composed after the speech made by the general secretary on 6 February, 1986, stated, among other things: “Whole, I am yours, so I feel you again (…) I see you apotheotic, like a Voivode ( …) I thank you for all, Good and  Honest Hero”.

Only after 1989, he dared to write, that’s right, in his declamative, remarkable style, the poem “Bessarabia on the Cross”. I used at the address of Adrian Paunescu the term “dared” from the quality of whom, in 1962, I had the courage to publicly declare that “the Romanian People’s Republic is a kind of prison «Sing Sing» in USA”, consequently I was almost to be expelled from school, being, after all, only sanctioned by a reprimand with avertisment within the Youth Workers’ Union. This would be one of the big differences between me and Adrian Paunescu, I publicly criticized the communist regime, it is true, only once after that I learned mind, getting a whole afternoon punches in plex, after neck in the cellars of authorities of that time, while my late colleague at the Writers’ Union of Romania did never do it, but, contrary, he extolled the virtues of the political leader, thus becoming a millionaire in lei, even before 1989. The richest of “culturnici”! God to forgive the sins of this particularly inventive political opportunist, in my opinion!

I finished with the bracket concerning the writer and politician Adrian Paunescu.

The silence of communist, “dejist” and “ceausist”, authorities, on the personality of Iuliu Hossu can be explained, in my opinion, analyzing the biography of the last 22 years of the  life of the “Herald” of Great Union.

Iuliu Hossu, born on January 30, 1885, in Milas, in Transylvania, died on May 28, 1970, at the Hospital “Colentina”, in Bucharest, from December 4, 1917, bishop at the Diocese of Gherla of the Greek – Catholic Church, who red “The Resolution of Union” on December 1, 1918, and who, as part of the delegation sent to Bucharest by Great National Council, delegation composed also by Alexandru Vaida – Voevod, Miron Cristea and Vasile Goldis, handed the “Act of Union” to the King Ferdinand I, was arrested by communist authorities on October 28, 1948. The reason for this arrest was Iuliu Hossu’s refusal to converse to Orthodoxy. He was under house arrest at the patriarchal villa from Dragoslavele, at the  Caldarusani Monastery, then, between 1950 and 1956, he was imprisoned in Sighet, then he had again house arrest at the Curtea de Arges Monastery, at the Ciorogârla Monastery and again, until his death, at Caldarusani Monastery.

This is the reason! “Dejist” and “ceausist” communist authorities, had committed an extremely heinous crime, which they sought to hide. The “herald” of the Great Union has spent the last 22 years of his life – as an irony, just as years has existed the Greater Romania – either in prison or under house arrest in various monasteries for the crime of being consistent in his religious faith, nonexistent crime in a country with a true democracy.

Also, many “culturnici”, people of culture before 1989, existing and after 1989 in all fields of culture, are striving hard to hide the crimes of communism. Consequently, even in the annual festivities since 1989, dedicated to the Great Union it was talking, i talking and will be talking more, less or not at all about Iuliu Hossu, depending on the influence of former “culturnici” on the display of the festivities, to avoid that Romanians find out for the first time or to remember about criminal conviction by the “dejist” and “ceausist” communist authorities of the “herald” of the Great Union.

In 1995, I composed a poem entitled “At the Nonexistent Statue of Iuliu Hossu”, because, at that time, there was no statue of Iuliu Hossu across Romania. The first statue of Iuliu Hossu was unveiled in Alba Iulia, on December 1, 1998, with the occasion of fulfiling of 80 years from the proclamation of the Great Union. The author of the statue is Simion Moldovan. This statue is part of a group of statues in front of the Great Hall of Union in Alba Iulia. In 2015, I published this poem on my blog “Carturaria”, but with the title “The Statue of Iuliu Hossu in Alba Iulia”.

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

 

 

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (5)

The adultery of Alexandru Ioan Cuza

with Maria Obrenovici and

the Palace of Ruginoasa,

become the Palace of… “Shameful”

(n.a. in Romanian, “Ruşinoasa”)

 

Alexandru Ioan Cuza, by his  double election as ruler of Moldavia, on January 5, 1859, and of the Romanian Land, on January 24, 1859, was the providential personality, that allowed a personal union of the two principalities of the Danube, the state acquiring the name of United Principalities. Although this union was recognized internationally only for the life of the prince, the fact, that on February 11, 1866, Alexandru Ioan Cuza was forced to abdicate, did not lead to the disintegration of the newly formed state, because, on May 10, 1866, strongly supported by the great powers of the time, like France and Prussia, Carol I was proclaimed ruler, who, in a very short time, on  July 1 of the same year, promulgated a constitution by which the state, called United Romanian Principalities, became the unitary state, called Romania.

The communist propaganda built for Alexandru Ioan Cuza an image of a man without blemish, of a defender of the poor people, of a ruler who was forced to abdicate by the so – called “monstrous coalition”, with the intention that the workers and peasants to be further exploited by the bourgeois – landlord regime, led by the new king, Carol I. In this way, communist propaganda has justified the political act of December 30, 1947, forcing the abdication of king Mihai I, a third-generation successor of Carol I. It  is to pose the question : the “dejist” regime would have forced the abdication of December 30, 1947, from the Romanian throne of a descendant of Alexandru Ioan Cuza? My answer is definitely yes.

I have talked about adultery of Alexandru Ioan Cuza in the long novel “The Gulag of Palms’ Shadow” and an aunt of mine, woman with good sense, after reading the passage in question had a shock, she did not belief, he asked me several times if that I wrote is true, then started to cry, the resentment that she has been lied so much in the communist school.

Also, it should be noted that Alexandru Ioan Cuza became very popular through the reforms made, especially after the introduction of the compulsory and tuition – free primary schools (n.a. by the Law of Public Instruction, of November 25, 1864), after the allotment of land to 406,429 peasant families (n.a. by the Agrarian Law, of August 25, 1864), after widening the participation on the vote (n.a. by the Electoral Law, of July 3, 1864) or after having introduced the “oca of Cuza” (n.a. the “oca” was an ancient unit of measurement, actually two “ocale”, one for capacities and one for weights, both adapted on the base of the  Metric System Decree, of September 15, 1864).

But the corruption, especially of those of his entourage, and the weakness for women have lowered the prestige of the ruler. If at the level of the masses, these drawbacks were viewed with indulgence, at that of the political elite, these defects were considered unbearable, especially because the new state was fragile, needing strong international support.

One of the peaks of adultery for a sovereign would constitute starting of a sexual act as sovereign and ending it as a mere mortal. Like this was displayed the abdication of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, near dawn (n.a. between 4 and 5 o’clock) of the day of February 11, 1866!

Army officers set up even by Alexandru Ioan Cuza, prepared with the act of abdication ready written, entered the bedroom, surprising  the prince and his concubine Maria Obrenovici in bed. With a gun, Cuza Voda signed the act of abdication, which, not to waste time looking a table, has been put on the back of Captain Constantin Pillat. In an adjoining room of the Royal Palace were sleeping Elena Cuza and  two children, Alexandru Ioan A. I. Cuza and Dimitrie A. I. Cuza, consequences of the prolonged adultery, they having as biological parents Maria Obrenovici and Cuza Voda (n.a. in short, the ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza was also named Cuza Vodă), but adopted by the family of the ruler.

The act of abdication, written by Ion Ghica and Constantin Alexandru Rosetti, had the following content: “We Alexandru Ioan I, as desired by the whole nation and the commitment I took at my ascend on the throne, I depose today, February 11, 1866, the helm of the gouvernment in the main of a Ruler Lieutenancy and of a Ministry elected by the people”.

After three days, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Elena Cuza and two children, Alexandru Ioan Cuza and Dimitrie Cuza took the path of foreignness. Interesting was that this convoy was joined by Maria Obrenovici.

On June 11, at 13 o’clock, the two legislative chambers, the Elective Assembly and the Ponderator Body (n.a. the Senate) have  constituted a Ruler Lieutenancy, consisting of Lascar Catargiu, from the part of Moldavia, Nicolae Constantin Golescu, from the part of Romanian Land, and Nicolae Haralambie, from the part of the Army. The executive leadership was awarded to Ion Ghica.

At the same time, as sovereign of the United Romanian Principalities was appointed Prince Philip of Belgium, Count of Flanders, son of Leopold I, King of Belgium, of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but married with Louise Marie Isabelle of Orleans. However, the royal house of Orleans was the enemy of the royal house of Napoleon, represented then by Napoleon III, president of France between December 20, 1846 and December 2, 1852, the king of France between December 2, 1852 and September 4, 1870, the main supporter of the  Union of the Principalities, who suggested that the first step in this goal is that Moldavia and Romanian Land have to choose one and the same ruler. But, the same day, by the Belgian consul in Bucharest, Philip of Belgium declined the nomination and Ion C. Bratianu was instructed to go to the Occident, to seek another sovereign for the United Romanian Principalities; so it came to Karl Eitel Friedrich Zephyrinus Ludwig von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, who, following the referendum of April 8 to 10, 1866, was approved to become the ruler of the United Romanian Principalities, with the name of Carol I, Prince of Hohenzollern – Sigmaringen.

Alexandru Ioan Cuza, born on March 20, 1820, in Husi, died on May 15, 1873, in Heidelberg, due to the excess of tobacco and black coffee. In addition to these vices, the ruler of the United Romanian Principalities was a passionate gambler and a notorious womanizer, these last defects leading to his lamentable end as a politician.

Elena Cuza, born on June 17, 1825, in Iasi, with the name of Rosetti, died on April 2, 1909, in Piatra Neamt, was married on April 30, 1844 with Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Her misfortune was that she could not have children, this being an important reason of the adoption of the two children resulting from the adultery of her husband with Maria Obrenovici. She survived the death of Cuza Voda and of the two adopted sons, Alexandru Ioan A. I. Cuza, died in 1889, in Spain, and Dimitrie A. I. Cuza, committed suicide in 1888, in the Palace of Ruginoasa.

Maria Elena Obrenovici, called briefly Maria Obrenovici, born in 1835, in Iasi, with the name of Catargiu, committed suicide on July 16, 1876, in Dresden, was married three times, but never with Alexandru Ioan Cuza. A second marriage was with Prince Milos Obrenovici, its fruit being Milan Obrenovici, born on August 22, 1854, in Maraşeşti, who became king of Serbia in the period March 6, 1882 – March 6, 1889.

Maria Obrenovici incited her son, Alexandru Ioan A. I. Cuza, to enter politics to become the king of Romania. He, supported by pro-Russians, the reason he was called with the Russian diminutive Sasha for Alexander, funded the newspaper “Truth” (n.a. in Romanian, “Adevărul”), as a propaganda tool against King Carol I. Alexandru Ioan A. .I. Cuza, after the suicide of his brother, Dimitrie Cuza, became the unique heir of the fortune of the family Cuza, including the Palace of Ruginoasa. Sasha Cuza was married to Maria Moruzi, born on April 14, 1863, died October 26, 1921 in Iasi. After the wedding, the two young husbands have gone on a trip to Spain. In Madrid occurred the death of Alexandru Ioan A. I. Cuza. ill with pulmonary tuberculosis, entered a galloping form.

Thus, according to the testament made before leaving for Spain by Sasha Cuza, the Palace of Ruginoasa Palace rested to Maria Moruzi.

As an aside, this palace was bought by Cuza Voda on January 25, 1862, with 52,011  “galbeni imparatesti” (n.a. “galbeni imparatesti” were gold coins of 24 carats, issued during the reign of Emperor Franz Josef) from the Bank of Moldavia. This bank pulled palace for sale, because it was the endorsment for a loan of 60,000 “galbeni imparatesti”, loan made by Alexandru Sturza, one of the sons of Ionita Sandu Sturza, who was ruler of Moldavia in the period July 21, 1822 – May 5 1828.

The Palace in Ruginoasa held a romance between Maria Cuza, daughter – in – law of Cuza Voda, and Ion I. C. Bratianu, romance which pushed that the palace to be named also  Palace of “Shameful” (n.a. in Romanian, “Ruşinoasa”).

Ion I. C. Bratianu, born on August 20, 1864, in Florica, died on November 24, 1927, in Bucharest (n.a. prime minister in the periods December 27, 1908 – March 4, 1909, January 9, 1909 – January 10, 1911, January 16, 1914 – February 9, 1918, December 14, 1918 – October 1, 1919, January 17, 1922 – March 30, 1926, June 23, 1927 – November 24, 1927), was the son of Ion Constantin Brătianu (n.a. prime minister in the periods July 24, 1876 – April 9, 1881 and 9 June 1881 – March 20, 1888), who participated at the abdication of Cuza Voda and at the bringing of a new sovereign from the Occident.

Maria Cuza, attracted by the nice physique and the intelligence of Ion I. C. Brătianu, slightly younger, trainee engineer at the construction site of railways in Iasi,  invited this descendent of the Bratianu family at the Palace in Ruginoasa. On February 3, 1898, following this relationship, was born Gheorghe I. Bratianu. To receive the name of Bratianu, the same day, at the church from the Palace of Ruginoasa, was officiated the marriage of the two biological parents of the new born, the marriage which was dissolved the same day. It was what remained in history under the name of “marriage – divorce in Ruginoasa”.

In this way, as a curse of the adultery, Cuza Voda remained without throne, the children, resulting from the adultery, were quickly extinguished, and the Palace of Ruginoasa came into possession of the descendend of one  his chief political enemies.

During the “dejisto – ceausist” communism, as a concern of all totalitarian regimes, it was trying to build the man of new type, in this case, communist, who  has to be ideological indoctrinated, hard – working, honest, with sound morality. But, that latter virtue does not match adultery. Therefore, the communist propaganda, which made from Alexandru Ioan Cuza  ruler worthy of being taken for example, did not remind anything about his adultery with Maria Obrenoviic.

After December 1989, when the reign of Alexandru Ioan Cuza began to be undone and into the front and back by historians and mass – media, the myth of the Cuza Voda fell. However, the fact that the name of Alexandru Ioan Cuza is so strongly linked to the Union of Principalities at official events, especially at those held in the presence of children or young people, it was avoided and still it is avoiding to speak about his adultery with Maria Obrenovici.

But the lye by omission has its repercussions, because just the vices of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, including that for women, took him to perdition as a politician, and the children and the young people need to know this truth, as about any vice.

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

 

 

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (4)

Dimitrie Cantemir, catastrophic ruler,

brought on the banks of the Pruth

the obsessed occupant, Peter the Great,

the ascendant of those

who raped from Romanians

Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

 

Dimitrie Cantemir, the most imposing cultural Romanian figure in Middle Ages, was catastrophic as ruler, because he was allied with the Russian Empire, and as a result, not only the Moldavian – Russian Army was defeated ignominiously by the Ottomans at the battle of Stanilesti, on the right bank of the Pruth, but on long-term, the consequences were, repeted epithet but deserved, catastrophic, because Russians considered and still consider that where past the army with Peter the Great in the front, they must occupy, finally that territory.

More precisely, on April 2, 1711, in Lutsk, Cantemir signed with Peter the Great a secret treaty of friendship, to the detriment of the Ottoman Empire. The reaction of the High Gates was prompt and the Moldavian-Russian Army, led by Peter the Great himself, was defeated, even circled, in the battle of Stanilesti, from the period July 18 to 22.  The Ottomans, in the frame of the Treaty of Pruth, concluded on July 23, 1711, demanded the ceding of Dimitrie Cantemir as hostage in their hands,  an idee found not acceptable by Peter the Great. As a result, the Moldavian ruler was helped to get out from the encirclement of the Ottoman Army, but shamefully, hidden in the carriage of Empress Ekaterina, seemingly, just under her wide skirt.

The context in which Dimitrie Cantemir was raised on the throne of Moldavia was not honorable for us, Romanians, because it was dominated by the “mioritic” (n.a. “mioritic” comes from the syntagme “mioritic space”, introduced by the writer Lucian Blaga, being a concept from the pastoral ballad “Little Ewe”, in Romanian, “Mioritza”, and serving as a Romanian space of all points of views, geographical, political, social, cultural etc.) rivalry between Moldavians  and “vrancenii” (n.a. “vrancenii” are the Romanian people from the region of Vrancea, situated in the south of Moldavia) from Targoviste, in this case between the ruling families Cantemir, respectively, Brancoveanu.

The father of Dimitrie Cantemir, Constantin Cantemir, a pro-Ottoman and also an anti-Polish for life, had a reign between June 25, 1685 and March 27, 1693, in which he has made himself remarkable, especially, by the order to kill the chronicler Miron Costin, of Polish origin. The brothers Miron and Velicico were beheaded, seemingly, just in the first Christmas Day of the year 1691.

For the most part during the reign of his father, without the first two years, the young Dimitrie Cantemir (n.a. Dimitrie Cantemir lived from October 26, 1673, till September 1, 1723) stood hostage in Istanbul, replacing Antioch, his bigger brother.

After the death of Constantin Cantemir, the boyars elected for the throne of Moldavia Dimitrie Cantemir, but Sultan Ahmed II has not confirmed him due to the machinations of Constantin Brancoveanu. Thus, after less than a month, on April 23, 1693, Dimitrie Cantemir had to give up the high position, the throne being occupied by Constantin Duca (n.a. Constantin Duca reigned in two periods, the first being April 23, 1693 – December 18, 1695), the favorite and the future groom of Constantin Brancoveanu. Thus began the conflict between Cantemir and Brancoveanu families!

Dimitrie Cantemir returned to Istanbul. In 1699 he married Cassandra, the daughter of Serban Cantacuzino, Constantin Brancoveanu’s predecessor on the throne.

Since then, Cantemir has began to target… the throne of Romanian Land, escalating the smoldering conflict between Cantemir and Brancoveanu families.

By other machinations of Constantin Brancoveanu, Dimitrie Cantemir arrived behind bars in Istanbul. Because of a dispute concerning an inheritance from their father, Antiochus, arrived prince of Moldavia (n.a. Antioch Cantemir ruled in two periods: December 8, 1695 – September 14, 1700, and February 12, 1705 – July 20, 1707), did not try to free his brother, Dimitrie Cantemir getting out of prison only at the insistence of the French ambassador, but with not very nice memories, which contributed to a certain extent, perhaps, to his decision to change Ottoman suzerainty with the Russian one, by the Treaty of Lutsk.

The Cantemiro – Brancoveanu conflict was attenuated when Constantin Brancoveanu was committed to pay annually ten bags of “galbeni” (n.a. “galbeni” were Florentine coins of gold), as compensation for etates taken by force from Serban Cantacuzino,, estates that were the wedding dowry of Cassandra.

Constantin Brancoveanu, after the Russian victory in the battle of Poltava on June 27, 1709, against the Swedes, made the fatal mistake, of sending a letter to Peter the Great, by which he took the commitment to help with an army of 30,000 men and to provide food for Russian army during a war of a Christian coalition against the Ottomans. Peter the Great answered affirmativelly and sent 300 bags of “galbeni” to Constantin Brancoveanu as aid for providing weapons.

Later, Sultan Ahmed II learned of this correspondence and, as a first measure, on November 10, 1710, put Dimitir Cantemir on the throne of Moldavia, as a man of confidence, knowing the conflict between Brancoveanu and Cantemir families.

This was the context of the two ascents on the throne of Dimitrie Cantemir!

The second measure of Sultan was on November 20, 1710: the declaration of war against the Russian Empire, ended with the battle of Stănileşti.

But Dimitrie Cantemir, even in the conditions  of declaration of this war, belived in the star of Peter the Great, turned his back to the Ottomans and concluded with the Russians, in secret, the  Treaty of Lutsk. On May 30, 1711, being informed that Sultan Ahmed II learned of this treaty, Dimitrie Cantemir asked Peter the Great to come urgently to Moldavia, to protect him from the Ottoman army, which was approaching Isaccea, to cross the Danube. The conceited king responded to the request, went to Moldavia with his army, but slowly, with long and often stops, being accompanied by wife, favorites, the people close to the court, more like in a visit for pleasure than to a war. Meanwhile, the Ottomans were able to cross the Danube. In this manner Peter the Great began what was called Pruthean Campaign (n.a. in Russian writing, “Прутский Поход”, in transliteration, “Prutskii pohod”), which was terminated by the humiliating defeat of Stanilesti.

Constantin Brancoveanu, being informed that the Ottomans crossed the Danube, felt which will be the end of the war and was in hurry to return to Peter the Great the 300 bags of “galbeni”, after what he began to help with food and fodder the Ottoman army.

It was a game at both ends of Constantin Brancoveanu, which costs extremely expensive on August 15, 1714, in Istanbul, he being executed by beheading, along with his sons, Constantin, Stefan, Radu and Matei, and his groom, Ianache Vacarescu.

Dimitrie Cantemir, in the two reigns, one aborted and another short, of nearly nine months, has proved that he was not born to be head of state.

In summary, the consequences of the catastrophic reign of Dimitrie Cantemir were:

a. on short term:

a.1. The Ottomans took revenge for his betrayal of Dimitrie Cantemir, robbed 93 villages encountered, setting in fire 73 of them;

a.2. Thousands of Moldavians went in exile from Moldavia, of whom at least one thousand,  people close to Dimitrie Cantemir, arrived in Russia, where they were Russified;

a.3. Moldavia has lost another piece of heritage; the fortress of Hotin and a large surrounding area became raya, a territory  administered directly by the Ottomans;

b. on long-term:

b.1. For more than a century, the High Porte called only foreign rulers, Greeks from the Phanar district of Istanbul, known as Phanariotes, starting in Moldavia, on July 23 1711, with Nicolae Mavrocordat, and then in the Romanian Land, on January 21, 1716, when on the throne ascended the same Nicolae Mavrocordat, after he was substituted in Moldavia by Mihai Racovita; the Phanariot epoch ended in Moldavia, on June 21, 1821, by the coming of the ruler Ioan Sturza, and in the Romanian Land, on June 30, 1822, by the coming of the ruler Grigore Dimitrie Ghica;

b.2. Respecting the written or unwritten, true or false testament of Peter the Great, in which the emperor  would have written that “I found Russia a little river, but I turned it into a great river; my followers to turn it into a sea” (n.a. in Russian writing, “я нашел Россию ручьем, а оставил её рекой; мои преемники превратят её в море” in transliteration, “ya nashol Rossyiu ruchiom, ya ostavil eiyo rekoy; moy preemniki prevratiati eiyo v more”), the Russian Empire turned Bessarabia as guberniya and, later, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics attached Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to some soviet republics.

And in the case in which the Moldavian – Russian Army would have defeated the Ottomans at Stanilesti, the consequences would have been catastrophic, perhaps this text I would have written in Russian, as an official language, and – I quote from “Letters of a Dniesteran – Tiszan Man” (Gunivas Publishing House, Chisinau, 2013) – “Romania would not have existed on the map, but only fragments in the frame of some ex-Soviet republics: the Republic of Moldavia (n.a. in Russian writing, «Республика Молдова», in transliteration, «Respublika Moldova»), the Republic of Transylvania (n.a. in Russian writing, «Республика Трансильвания» in transliteration, «Respublika Transylvania»), the Republic of Wallachia (n.a. in Russian writing, «Республика Валахия» in transliteration, «Respublika Wallachia»)… or who does know which would have been the course of history?”

Dimitrie Cantemir was extolled by communist propaganda, because it was a russophile, was allied with the Russians and was almost ready to give the country in their hands, the “dejist” (n.a. Romanian word coming from Gheorghe Gheorghiu – Dej) and “ceausist” (n.a. Romanian word coming from  Nicolae Ceausescu) Romania being also allied with Moscow, almost to become a soviet union republic.

After 1989, the “culturnici” (n.a. “culturnic”, at pluriel, “culturnici” is a Romanian word meaning communist activist responsible for culture) managed to maintain an aura of great ruler, when, in fact, Dimitrie Cantemir was a catastrophic politician.

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

 

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

 

 

 

 

 

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (3)

Stefan the Great and Holy was hurt

during the siege of the fortress Chilia

by the  Hungarian guard

In the wood language, of a patriotism wrongly understood, of falsification of the true history of Romanians, it was propagated during the communist regime and still it is propagatd the idea that Stefan the Great and Holy had been hurt by a Tartar in his left ankle, plague which has never closed and has led to a great physical suffer and to hasten death of the Moldavian ruler.

The Tatar arrow sounds nicely, even romantically! The reality is that the plague of Stefan cel Mare was caused during the first siege and missed (n.a. in the second siege, of just one day, on January 24, 1465, the fortress Chilia was conquered) of the fortress Chilia, occupied temporarily by Hungary. It follows that the highest probability is that the object that caused the wound, projectile, according to some chroniclers, or arrow, after other chroniclers, way sent by a Hungarian soldier.

The fortress Chilia, port on the homonymous arm of the Danube, belonged to Wallachia of Mircea the Elder (n.a.. ruler in the period September 23, 1396 – January 31, 1418). In 1426, Alexandru the Good annexed the fortress Chilia, taking advantage of the struggles for the throne of Wallachia between Radu II, one of the illegitimate sons of Mircea the Elder, and Dan II, the only son of Dan I, who was the brother of Mircea the Elder. In 1448, Peter III (n.a. ruler în the periods August 22 – December 23, 1447 and April 5 – October 10, 1448), son of Alexandru the Good and the fourth wife, Marina, ceded the fortress Chilia to Iancu Hunyadi, for the help he received in the struggle  to occupy the throne of Moldavia with Roman II, son of Ilias and Marina Holszanska, the sister of Sophie, wife of Vladislav II, the king of Poland.

So, as a first remark, Stefan the Great and Holy started the first siege of the fortress Chilia on June 1462, when it belonged to Hungary. On June 22, being wounded in the left ankle by a projectile or an arrow, Stefan the Great and Holy was forced to abandon the siege.

Secondly, it is necessary to point out the international context in which the siege occurred, referring mainly to the Congress of Mantua and the invasion of Wallachia by the Ottoman army, which culminated with the so-called “the night attack in Targoviste”.

On January 14, 1460, the Congress of Mantua, initiated by Pius II (n.a. pope in the period August 19, 1458 – August 4, 1464), it was announced the start of a crusade, which will last three years, crusade which has not been joined by big Christian powers, including Poland, also by a less power, as Moldavia. An enthusiastic support came from the Romanian Land (n.a. Wallachia), headed by Vlad the Impaler, and from another one, but retained, from Hungary, whose king was Matthias Corvinus.

In 1462, Sultan Mehmet II led a large operation of invasion of Wallachia, the reason being the repeated refusal, even since 1459, of Vlad the Impaler to pay the tribute to the Ottoman Empire. The annual tribute was 10,000 ducats and 1,000 boys to be trained as janissaries. Vlad the Impaler withdrew in Targoviste, poisoning wells and setting fire to houses, in order not to leave any food and drink to the Ottoman army. Simultaneously, the Wallachian ruler did surprise attacks of short duration, causing great losses among Ottomans.

Famous in this regard remained the so-called “the night attack in Targoviste” occurred on June 17, 1462, when the group of soldiers, led by Vlad the Impaler (n.a. ruler in three periods, the third being in August 22, 1446 – August 15, 1462), entered inside the Ottoman army camp, reaching just near to the tent where slept Sultan Mehmet II, almost ready to kill him. A few days later, when the Ottoman army entered in Targoviste, Vlad the Impaler offered a nightmarish spectacle, called “Forest of Pales”, with some 20,000 Turkish prisoners held on the slivers. Mehmet II, with stomach turned inside out by this show, preferred to withdraw from the Romanian Land,  leaving to Radu the Handsome, the task of removing from the throne Vlad the Impaler, his half brother. This change of ruler occurred on August 15, 1462, when Radu the Handsome ascended the throne of Wallachia.

So, as a second remark, Stefan the Great and Holy assaulted the fortress Chilia, when Wallachia was invaded by the Ottomans, and the Hungarian or Vlach aid for the Hungarian garrison would have been much more difficult.

Despite these strategic advantages, Stefan the Great and Holy lost this battle, especially because he had the misfortune to be injured on June 22, at the left ankle, by an arrow or a projectile, sent by the Hungarian garrison from the fortress Chilia.

Hiding this truth starts from the fear of the patriotards, how are called the persons displaying exaggerated and noisy sentiments of patriotism, to recognize that, even temporarily, even punctually, Hungary had authority over a stretch of land, which was located inside the frame  of the Greater Romania, Romania with the largest territory in its history.

The lye with an arrow sent by a Tartar has short legs and such “historians” risk not to be believed even when they speak the truth!

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

 

 

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (2)

Moldavia of Stefan the Great and Holy,

permanently under the suzerainty

of one, two or even three countries:

Ottoman Empire, Poland and Hungary

Stefan the Great and Holy was voievode of Moldavia between April 14, 1457 and July 2, 1504, during which, according to his testimony, wore 36 battles, of which 34 won.

The most resounding battles won by Stefan the Great and Holy were against the Ottoman Empire, at Vaslui, on January 10, 1475, against Hungary, at Baia, on December 15, 1467, and against Poland, at Codrii Cosminului, on October 26, 1496.

Among other won battles, the most important were against the army of Moldavia, at Doljesti, on April 2, 1457, against the army of Wallachia, at Bucharest, on November 21, 1473, and against the army of Khanate of Crimea, at Lipnic, on August 20, 1469.

The lost battles of the Moldavian voivode took place against the Ottoman Empire, at  Valea Alba, on July 26, 1476, and against Hungary, at Chilia, on June 22, 1462.

Throughout all reign,  Stefan the Great and Holy was particularly active and surprising in the diplomatic field, made five major changes in foreign policy, in all not on par, but inferiority, sought permanent to ensure to a country relatively small, as is Moldavia, a protective suzerainty from one or more  countries, the suzerain countries being Poland, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, taken by one, by two or by all three put together. Only in the last five years of his life and reign, Stefan the Great and Holy was predictable in foreign policy, being constantly under Ottoman suzerainty.

Moldavia was under the suzerainty of Poland from 14 September, 1387, when Petru II, named also Petru Musat, voivode of Moldavia between 1375 and 1391, signed in Lvov a treaty in this sense with Vladislav II, King of Poland between August 15, 1382 and June 1, 1434.

On October 12, 1449, occurred the battle of Tamaseni, at which Bogdan II, father of Stefan the Great and Holy, helped by Iancu of Hunyadi, regent of Hungary, defeated Ciubar Voda, becaming voievode of Moldavia.

As a result, through two acts, issued on February 11 and July 5, 1450, in Roman, respectively, in Suceava, Bogdan II, the illegitimate son of Alexandu the Good (n.a. voivode of Moldavia in the period June 29, 1400 – January 1, 1432), recognized the suzerainty of Hungary.

As a reprisal, Poland helped Petru Aron, son of Alexandru the Good, to reach the throne. On October 16, 1451, in Reuseni, in the front of an army, Petru Aron succeeded to attack by surprise Bogdan II, while he was attending a wedding, and beheaded him.

Petru Aron did no more recognize the suzerainty of Hungary. After fighting for the throne of Moldavia with Alexandrel, the younger brother of Roman II, whom defeated definitively on May 24, 1455, Petru Aron passed back  Moldavia under the suzerainty of Poland, bringing fidelity homage in 1455, as well in 1456, giving at the same time privileges to the merchants of cloth from Krakow, privileges started during the reign of Alexandru the Good.

On June 5, 1456, at the request of Sultan Mohamed II, made the year before, and to be sure of throne, Petru Aron began to pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire, tribute in worth of 2,000 ducats.

Here it was a precedent, Petru Aron  brought Moldavia under a double sovereignty: Polish and Ottoman!

But the period of anarchy, of fighting for the throne of Moldavia, battle commenced on January 1, 1432, when died Alexandru the Good, not ceased. On the political arena  entered Stefan the Great and Holy, who has lived at the court of Iancu Hunyadi after July 5, 1450, when Bogdan II recognized the suzerainty of Hungary, and until August 11, 1456, when died the regent of Hungary.

In the battle of Doljesti, on April 12, 1457, Stefan the Great and Holy defeated the army of Moldavia, led by Petru Aron and began a reign of 47 years, the second longest in Romanian history, after that of 48 years, of Carol I.

In this battle, Stefan the Great and Holy was aided by soldiers of Vlad the Impaler, the husband of Ilona Szilagyi, and son in law of Mihaly Szilagyi, father in law, who, during the Battle of Doljesti was in full period of regency of Hungary. For more clarity, it should be added that Mihaly Szilagyi was brother of Erzebet Szilagyi, the  wife of Iancu Hunyadi and mother of Matthias Corvinus, in other words, Mihaly Szilagyi was the brother in law of Iancu Hunyadi and the uncle of Matthias Corvinus. It is also necessary to specify that Mihaly Szilagyi was regent of Hungary shortly after November 23, 1456, when died King Ladislaus VI, and until January 20, 1458, when the Diet choose Matthias Corvinus as king of Hungary.

So, Stefan the Great and Holy began his reign under a double suzerainty, Hungarian and Ottoman, he continuing to pay the tribute of 2,000 ducats, began by Petru Aron.

But, unwilling to enter into an anti-Ottoman alliance, as him demanded Matthias Corvinus, the king of Hungary, Stefan the Great and Holy made a first big change in his foreign policy. Thus, on April 4, 1459, when king of Poland was Casimir IV Jagiellon (n.a. king in the period June 25, 1447 – June 7, 1492), Stefan the Great and Holy acknowledged Polish suzerainty.

Started a period in which Moldavia was under another doble sovereignty: Polish and Ottoman. After the second assault, this time victorious, on January 24, 1465, on the fortress Chilia, Stefan the Great and Holy increased  the tribute to the High Porte to 3,000 ducats.

The most important Hungarian reprisal after the event of April 4, 1459 came after eight years, when the army led by Matthias Corvinus entered the territory of Moldavia and, consequently, in the night between December 14 and 15, 1467 occurred the battle of Baia, besides Suceava, with the army led by Stefan the Great and Holy. King Matthias Corvinus was wounded three times and his army escaped alive and unharmed only by half. Mathias Corvinus escaped, his running away being relieved by the hesitation the great “vornic” (n.a. in the Middle Ages, “vornic” was a high magistrate, charged with overseeing the Court, with the management of the country’s internal affairs, and having judicial powers)  Crasnas, commander of one of the three bodies Moldavian Army. This mistake was punished by Stefan the Great and Holy, who ordered to behead Crasnas, but for 24 other landowners, considered as traitors, he ordered to be executed by impalement, after the model of whom helped him to ascend on the throne, Vlad the Impaler.

The second major change in his foreign policy was in 1473, when Stefan the Great and Holy ceased paying tribute of 3,000 ducats, thus renouncing the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire.

In this way, Moldavia remained only under Polish suzerainty.

In the same time began the campaign of Stefan the Great and Holy to support  Laiota Basarab to ascend on the throne of Romanian Land, in order of a joined fight of their countries against the Ottomans. The army of Stefan the Great and Holy and the army of mercenaries of Laiota Basarab passed the river Milcov on November 8, 1473, and between November 18 and 20, 1473, took place the so – called battle of the Cursul Apei, near Gheorghita, from the current Prahova county. The army of Radu the Handsome, the brother of Vlad the Impaler, was beaten and the Wallachian ruler got refuge in Bucharest. Even there he did not found peace of mind, where on November 21 began a siege. Radu the Handsome retreated in Giurgiu, the residence of the Ottoman homonymous raya, and returned to Bucharest in front of an army of Vlachs and Turks, army which on November 26 was rejected at the entry into Bucharest by the troops led by Stefan the Great and Holy and Laiota Basarab.

Sensing the danger of a large Ottoman attack, Stefan the Great and Holy made a third big change in his foreign policy. On July 12, 1474, the Moldavian ruler  recognized again the suzerainty of Hungary, whose king was still Matthias Corvinus (n.a. king in the period January 20, 1458 – April 6, 1490).

Thus, Stefan the Great and Holy got two suzerains in his intention to face reprisals of the Ottoman Empire, which came after less than half a year.

On January 10, 1975, in Vaslui, Stefan the Great and Holy rejected the attack of the Ottomans, led by Suleiman Pasha, bey of Rumelia.

Then, after the Battle of Valea Albă, on July 26, 1476, had with the Ottomans headed, this time, by Sultan Mehmet II (n.a. sultan during the period February 18, 1451 – May 3, 1481), Stefan the Great and Holy and what remained from of his army retreated in the fortresses of Suceava and Hotin, applying the strategy of scorched earth.

On August 10, 1476, deprived of food, Mehmet II decided to end the siege of the two fortresses. Thus there were created the conditions for Stefan the Great and Holy to move to the fourth big change in his foreign policy. Moldavian sovereign signed a peace treaty with Mehmet II, through which Moldavia went back under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire and was again forced to pay the annual tribute of 3,000 ducats. As an aside, later in 1480, on its own initiative, Stefan the Great and Holy increased this tribute to 6,000 ducats, hoping that the Turks will not occupy, mainly, the fortress Chilia, hope which lasted four years because on July 14, 1484 the army led by Bayezid II (n.a. sultan in the period May 3, 1481 – April 24, 1512), conquered this very important commercial center of Moldavia.

Thus, Stefan the Great and Holy got to ensure to Moldavia three suzerain countries, the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Hungary, fact which was not of much use if already had  been torn off from her crown jewels like Chilia and Cetatea Albă.

Therefore, the triple suzerainty did not exist too much, Stefan the Great and Holy took the fifth biggest change in his foreign policy, he began to believe that to Moldavia will be sufficient an unique suzerainty, that of the Ottoman Empire.

Hungarian suzerainty over Moldavia gradually weakened, with the start from August 10, 1476, when Stefan  the Great and Holy went back under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire and ended tacitly after April 6, 1490, when Matthias Corvinus died.

Polish suzerainty lasted, in fact, until October 26, 1497, when took place the battle of  Codrii Cosminului, during the reign of King John Albert (n.a. king in the period September 23, 1492 – June 17, 1501). It is worth to mention that Polish suzerainty over Moldavia officially ceased as the result of a treaty between the two countries, signed on July 12, 1499.

After the battle of Codrii Cosminului, when Poles were defeated, fact pleased by Turks, the tribute claimed by the High Porte dropped to 4,000 ducats.

At the same time, we can say that Stefan  the Great and Holy has finally found a suzerainty strong enough to Moldavia, offering to ” the quickly eager to shed innocent blood,” as described by Grigore Ureche, the last five years of reign and life without battles, in the rest so necessary for his age of 65-70 years, age very advanced at that time.

Also, Stefan  the Great and Holy had the merit of choosing a suzerainty, who did not try to assimilate the population of Moldavia with that of Turkish language, as happened with other occupants of the Romanian territories.

This truth, that a relatively small country needs a suzerainty from a great power, foreign policy applied even for the most warrior Romanian ruler, Stefan the Great and Holy, must be said out loudly, not in a whisper or even passed under silence.

The problem is the science of choosing a suzerainty that does not dismantle us as people, being well known the previous cases of Russification,  Magyarization of a large number of Romanians…

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)

Files from the Whispered History of Romanians (1)

Basarab I,

the founder of Wallachia,

had most probably and Cuman origin

      Our history, of Romanians, gives us clear evidence that we were led by heads of state of foreign origins, of which it is spoken well documented and unanimously accepted about the Phanariot rules in the Principality of Moldavia and in the Principality of Romanian Land, about the Hungarian rules in the Principality of Transylvania, about the German kings in Romania.

Instead, if there are voices saying that, for example, Basarab I had and Cuman origin, then the reactions are violent, as a kind of desperate cry at something above affordability; I heard some respectable ladies and gentlemen saying: “is lacking to hear one day that Basarab I was also of Romani origin or that our country, in its history, was led by Romani people (n.a. Romani people are also known under the name of Gypsies)! ”

In that regard, which is not part of this file from the whispered history of Romanians, to avoid any confusion between Cumans and Romanis, given the confusion propagated internationally between Romanians and Romanis, confusion sustained by hostile circles to Romania, it is necessary to precise the great difference: the Cumans are a people of Turkic origin, and Romanis – a people of Hindu origin.

As a personal observation, most Romanians accept stranger heads  of states, but with origins in the Occident, an eloquent example being the winning of presidential elections, on 16 November 2014, by Klaus Werner Johannis, the president of a party much less numerous, than of his counter-candidate, Victor Viorel Ponta.

The first between the important Romanian historians, who was sezed of the Ciman origin of the name Basarab was Nicolae Iorga: “The name is cuman (…)”. Then, in the same phrase, Nicolae Iorga put a question remaining rhetorical for him, but also for many generations of historians who followed him: “(…) only the name?”

It is obvious that a name with foreign origin does not necessarily means that the person is of foreign origin.

He was followed by Neagu Djuvara, who claimed that Thocomerius, father of Basarab I, known also as Basarab the Founder, had also Cuman origin and Negru Voda is a nickname given by the people to Thocomerius, due to his skin (n.a. Negru means Black); the dark skin was confirmed in the writings of Miron Costin and Paul Aleppo. Thocomerius can be translated as “hardned steel”, coming from the Cuman terms “toq” and “tamir”, and Basarab may come from Cuman words “bas” and “ab”, which means “father of who is governing”.

The same Neagu Djuvara showed that Cozia Monastery (n.a. consecrated on May 18, 1338, by Mircea the Elder) and Horezu Monastery (n.a. consecrated on September 8, 1693 by Constantin Brancoveanu), the biggest constructions of the followers of Thocomerius have Cuman names, which are translated as “walnut forest” and “ural owl”. Also Neagu Djuvara, based on historical mentions that in the victory at the Battle of Posada, from the period 9 – 13 November, 1330, against the army of Charles Robert of Anjou, the King of Hungary, the army of Basarab I had Tatar support, and  that many Tatar rulers of the Golden Horde had Cuman origin, concluded that just the possible Cuman origin of Basarab I favored the ties with the Tatars.

The historian Matei Cazacu, I had the opportunity to know him at the Book Fairs in Paris, the editions of 2014 and 2015, he being always included in the project developed with these occasions by the Romanian Cultural Institute in Paris, criticized Neagu Djuvara arguing that in “Lex Antiqua Valachorum” collection of Vlach laws and traditions, for example, for Gorals in Poland, Vlachs elected their rulers in their lineage. However, in 1291, Thocomerius changed residence from the Land of Fagaras, crossed the Carpathians (n.a. known also as Transylvanian Alps) and “dismounted”, meaning that he has been established as the head of a state entity, with the residence in Campulung, which shows, according to Romanian historian in Paris, he could not be with Cuman origin because Wallachian would not have chosen him at this high position.

The surprise came from the historian Denis Capraroiu, who made the following observations: 1. Thocomerius obtained the Land of Fagaras  at the expense of the rightful owner, Ugrinus Csáki, through the support he had from Ladislau IV, also known as Ladislaus the Cuman (n.a. in Hungarian, Kun László; his mother was Elizabeth Cumana, in Hungarian, Erzsébet Kun), king of Hungary in the period august 6, 1272 – July 10, 1290;

2. After the assassination of Ladislaus IV, Ugrin Csák asked this property back and Thocomerius, lacking royal patron, was forced to leave the Land of Fagaras and reached Campulung;

3. Also it is documented that in 1290 there was a great invasion from the mouth of the Danube to the Black Sea, till the Iron Gate, from the part of the Golden Horde, especially from the emirate led by Nogai (n.a. the name comes from “nohoi”, which in Mongolian means “dog”), emir residing in the Danube town of Isaccea; this invasion, very important to mention, has imposed Thocomerius in front of the heads of the small Vlach state formations, such as those in Oltenia and Land of Hateg. Only his son Basarab I became ruler of a much larger state with borders close to those of the future Romanian Land, known throughout history and as Ungro-Wallachia or Wallachia.

Thus, falls the argument that Thocomerius, through the fact that, being elected head of a new state formation, could not have foreign origin, in this case, Cuman; actually, Thocomerius was imposed in this position by the emir Nogai.

As an aside, the method of the emir Nogai to govern the invaded territories through some princes with Cuman origins was used a decade earlier, in 1280, when he imposed at the throne in Tarnovo (n.a. Tarnovo was the capital of Bulgaria) George Terter I (n.a. in Bulgarian writing Георги Тертер I, in the transliteration Georgi Terter I), akin to a Cuman clan, Terteroba.

So, by simple deduction, if trough the documents appears highly likely that Thocomerius had and Cuman origin, that is, if he was not fully Cuman, he came at least from a Wallachian – Cumanian symbiosis, implicitly and his son, voivod Basarab I, the Founder, came at least from a Wallachian – Cumanian symbiosis.

Symbioses with a Cuman component at the origin of sovereigns were also produced around the same period and at our Bulgarian and Hungarian neighbors, as in the cases already mentioned George Terter I, respectively, Ladislaus IV.

I hope that this deduction will not be followed by uncontrolled reactions, generating personal enmieties or “metaphorical” allusions with shots, as they are hearing sometimes since 1990 in Romania, or even facts of shots, as did the Legionary Police in the interwar period, which has, important to note, many nostalgics after the 1989, police which assassinated Nicolae Iorga, on November 27, 1940, who, among others, put the problem of the possible Cuman origin of Thocomerius and, implicitly, of Basarab I.

Patriotism does not mean to string lies about the history of the nation, but to assume this history and, based on learne lessons, to fight so that the events from the history, we do not agree, do not happen again.

 

Doru Ciucescu

 

The text is part from the volume in course of translation “Files from the Whispering History of Romanians”

(The translation from Romanian and the adaptation are realized by the author himself)