Roumania Past and Present

J >> James Samuelson >> Roumania Past and Present

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

'Roumanians, by the election of a foreigner as Prince of Roumania,
the votes of the Divan will become an accomplished fact.'

Let us add a few words concerning this proceeding. We have heard blame
attributed to the revolutionists, who, as already stated, comprised the
leading statesmen of the country, for using force in order to ensure
Couza's abdication, and so far as the mere legality of the document is
concerned, his signature, thus obtained, was of course valueless. But in
order to be able to form a correct opinion on the crisis and the acts of
the revolutionists, it would be necessary to understand not only the
character of the prince (which would alone have justified extreme
measures, if one half be true that has been written concerning him), but
also to estimate the effect of any delay that might have arisen from a
more pacific and deliberate course of action. The popular leaders had
not forgotten the lessons of 1848, and it was not likely they would be
so insensate as to give time for Russian or Turkish intrigues once more
to break down the barriers of their hardly-won liberties. That the
nation was satisfied is proved by the sequel. No one troubled himself
about Couza, who was allowed to withdraw from Roumania laden with the
spoils of his reign; and when afterwards the name of the present ruler
was placed before the people it was accepted with joy and acclamation.

But we have had another reason for dwelling at greater length than has
been customary with historians upon this incident in Roumanian annals.
It was to show the kind of example in morality, or rather immorality and
faithlessness, which was set by one of the princes of the country so
recently as fifteen or sixteen years since. Such conduct may be treated
with contempt in countries having a well-established and settled
constitution, but in a new-born nationality it could not fail to work
great mischief, which has not yet been fully remedied despite the
example of an unblemished Court.

[Footnote 169: As the event is comparatively recent, we have considered
it desirable to suppress two or three names of persons who may be still
living, and whose connection with the revolution is of no moment.]

[Footnote 170: That _would_ have been cowardly.--AUTHOR.]

[Footnote 171: One of his mistresses, who was with him.]

CHAPTER XIV.

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF PRINCE COUZA (1866) TO THE CORONATION OF KING
CHARLES (1881).

Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern--Signs the
Constitution--Former differences between the Prince and the
Parliament--(Note: State of parties with leaders in 1881)--Action
of Russia prior to the war of 1877--Turkish incapacity and
obstinacy--Perplexing position of Roumania--Reluctance of the
nation to interfere--First attitude of neutrality--The Porte
declares the Prince an enemy--The Prince and army
organisation--Value of Roumanian co-operation to Russia--The
Russian army of operations--Crosses the Danube and occupies Sistova
and the Shipka Pass--Repeated defeats at Plevna and
elsewhere--Gloomy outlook for the Russians--The Roumanians cross
the Danube--First estimates of them--Contemptuous criticisms and
anecdotes--Changing views regarding them--Prince Charles appointed
Commander-in-Chief of the allies before Plevna--Defences of
Plevna--The Grivitza redoubt--Strength and composition of the
armies--Commencement of the attack (August 31, 1877)--Capture of
Loftcha by Skobeleff--Russian operations against Plevna--Great
assault of September 11--Defeat of the Russians--Ineffectual
bravery of Skobeleff--His appearance after the repulse--The
Roumanians--The 'indomitable' Grivitza redoubt--Roumanian
approaches (September 7 to 10)--Assaults and final capture and
retention of the redoubt by the Roumanians (11th)--Carnage in the
redoubt--Unsuccessful attempt to capture a second
redoubt--Flattering criticisms upon their bravery--Further
Roumanian victories and services in the war--Failure of Osman Pasha
to break the lines of the allies--His submission--Interview between
Osman, the Grand Duke, and Prince Charles--Russian ingratitude to
Roumania--'Exchange' of Bessarabia for the Dobrudscha--Treaty of
San Stephano and Berlin Conference--Roumania
independent--Coronation of the King and Queen--Conclusion of
historical review.

I.

After the fall of Couza the two Chambers elected the Count of Flanders,
a younger brother of the King of Belgium, as his successor, but, owing
probably to the threatening attitude of the Porte, that Prince declined
the honour. Their choice then fell upon the reigning sovereign, Prince
Charles of Hohenzollern (son of Prince Charles Anton, of
Hohenzollern-Siegmaringen), who accepted the nomination, and was
proclaimed Prince of Roumania on the anniversary of his birthday, April
20, 1866, and was received with great joy on his arrival at the capital.
The Sublime Porte protested as usual, but this time the Roumanians
threatened--at least, they determined to uphold their choice, and
collected a strong force with that object. After vainly endeavouring to
enlist the Powers on his side, the Sultan gave his assent to the
nomination, and the Prince was invested with the sovereignty for himself
and his heirs.

Meanwhile the national leaders had prepared the draft of the
constitution under which Roumania is now governed, of which the leading
stipulations, along with the names of its framers, will be found in the
Appendix (III.), and on June 30 [July 12] it was approved and signed by
the Prince, who at the same time took the qualifying oath, first at
Bucarest, and shortly afterwards at Jassy, where he was received with
equal enthusiasm by the Moldavians.

Few rulers have had the obstacles to contend with that greeted Prince
Charles on his accession to the throne of Roumania, and few indeed have
managed so completely to overcome their difficulties and to win the
affections of their subjects--a task which has, however, been materially
lightened in his case by the co-operation of his talented consort, whom,
as Princess Elizabeth of Wied, he espoused in November 1869. The
liberties of Roumania had not been of slow growth, and the people who
for sixteen centuries had been the downtrodden vassals, first of this
and then of that dominant race of barbarians, were naturally, a little
awkward when they were called upon to assume the responsibilities, as
well as to enjoy the privileges, of emancipation. We will not dwell upon
the party dissensions which for a series of years militated against the
smooth working of the new Constitution, nor upon the known fact that the
Prince well-nigh relinquished the reins of power in consequence of the
repeated changes of ministry and the unworthy jealousies of those who,
having first selected him as a foreigner, subsequently charged this
against him as a disqualification. Nor must we examine too narrowly all
the causes of this restlessness in the people. They had been so often
betrayed by their rulers, and were so jealous of their newly-won
liberties, that, it may be, the acts of a prince of the house of
Hohenzollern were not always in accord with the tastes of a
semi-republican legislature. This friction, through the devotion of the
ruler and the good sense and patriotism of his advisers, has ceased to
exist; and, far from there being now a bitter strife of parties, one of
the Roumanian leaders deplores that there is not a more active and
powerful opposition to the ministry, which was last elected in 1875, and
has for more than six years guided the destinies of the nation.[172]

[Footnote 172: The Conservatives were overthrown in 1875, and although
there are at present nominally three parties in the State there can
hardly be said to be an opposition. When the author was in Roumania, in
the autumn of 1881, the two Liberal chiefs were John Bratiano, President
of the Council, and C.A. Rosetti, who has held more than one portfolio.
We shall speak of these statesmen in the sequel. The Liberal party in
the Chamber of Deputies numbers about one hundred and twenty; whilst the
Conservatives, led by MM. Catargi, Labovari, and Maiorescu, and the
Radicals, with MM. Vernesco and Nicolas Jonesco, number together only
about thirty-five members. In the Senate, out of seventy-six members
only about sixteen or eighteen are in opposition. This is not altogether
to be regretted; such disparities do not last long, and whilst on the
one hand criticism of the mistakes or misconduct of Government officials
(and more particularly against sub-officials, who are often charged with
grave offences) is now confined chiefly to the press, on the other hand
a little constitutional despotism is very much needed, not only to
correct such abuses promptly, but also to hasten the necessary reforms
and to ameliorate the condition of the country. This is the result of
personal observation and contact with official life, and not a mere
speculative opinion.]

II.

Let us now consider the circumstances which lately enabled Roumania to
throw off the last traces of her vassalage, and to take her place in the
comity of European nations; and with a brief narrative of those events
we must bring this imperfect outline of her past history to a close. The
story of the last Russo-Turkish war must be within the memory of all our
readers who take the slightest interest in Oriental politics. How
Russia, chafing under the restrictions which had been put upon her by
the Treaty of Paris, had succeeded in obtaining a modification of that
treaty, which gave her once more the right of entrance into the Black
Sea; how, resuming her favourite _role_ of protectress of the Christian
inhabitants of Turkey, she intervened in the affairs of those nations
who stood between her and Constantinople; how the Servians and
Montenegrins, incited by her, rose in revolt, and the Bulgarians
followed suit; how the European Powers, sympathising with Turkey on the
one hand, in consequence of the renewed machinations and transparent
designs of her powerful northern enemy, and on the other despairing of
her on account of the barbarities with which she endeavoured to quell
the rising in her vassal provinces, the inherent weakness of her rule,
and the bankrupt condition of her finances, they were compelled at
length to leave her at the mercy of her foe. To repeat the narrative of
these would be telling an oft-told tale. But when, after the final
break-up of the Conference of Constantinople in January 1877, the Cross
and the Crescent were once more opposed to each other, and when the
Russian forces were massed on the eastern bank of the Pruth, then came
the moment at which it behoved the newly-liberated nation, which had so
often been the victim of the 'holy' strife, to decide on which side it
would array itself. Indeed, Roumania had little choice in the matter;
the critics who have censured her policy, and have charged her with
breach of faith towards her suzerain the Porte (and we know there are
many such in this country), cannot have carefully considered her past
history; nor have reflected upon the position in which she was
placed.[173] As a matter of preference, the young nation which was about
being dragged into this ruthless strife could have none, and might with
justice have exclaimed, 'A plague on both your houses!' What cared they,
on the one hand (and this was the popular sentiment), for the
hypocritical crusade undertaken for purposes of aggrandisement; or, on
the other, what sympathy could they have with the moribund State which
had ever been to them as the daughters of the horseleech, and whose
atrocities were identical with those that were perpetrated in the days
when Huns and Vandals devastated their own fair plains? If Roumania in
her then condition (now it would be different) had opposed the passage
of the Russian forces, they would have entered her territory as enemies,
the war would have been carried on once more within her borders, and,
beggared and prostrate, she might at best have reckoned upon retaining
her political independence through the intervention of the European
Powers; though, looking at the fact that these had recognised Russia as
their executioner in Turkey, it is very questionable whether they would
have interfered for the protection of Roumania, and whether she would
not have fallen to Russia along with Bessarabia. On the other hand, if
she had actively sided with either Power, her national independence and
the happiness of her people would have been staked upon the result. She
chose the wise, and indeed the only course, namely, that of allowing her
powerful neighbour to pass through her dominions, stipulating that, so
far as Russia could help it, she should be spared the desolation and
horrors of war within her frontiers. But what course did the Porte
adopt? Not recognising the _force majeure_ which had driven Roumania to
this decision, she was suicidal enough to declare her an enemy, and to
threaten to depose the Prince, thus giving to her bitterest foe an ally
who, at a critical period, in self-defence, turned the scale against
her, and caused her to lose some of her fairest provinces. For the
Roumanians well knew, after the declared enmity of the Porte, that the
defeat of the Russians and their withdrawal into their own territories
would at once have been followed by all the incidents of Turkish rule,
of which for centuries they had had such a bitter experience.

Amongst the valuable services which Prince Charles had rendered to his
adopted country before the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war was the
organisation of a national army on the German model. Under Prince Couza
the whole standing army of the two Principalities was at first 8,400
men, but he raised it to 25,000 strong, and officered it on the French
system. When Prince Charles received the investiture at the hands of
the Sultan in 1867, the army was limited to 30,000 men of all ranks; but
he substituted German for French officers, and sent young Roumanians to
Germany to study military tactics. In 1874 the standing army numbered
18,542 men of all arms, and the territorial forces 43,744, making a
total of 62,286 men and 14,353 horses; these were armed with 52 steel
Krupp guns, besides about 200 of an inferior description; 25,000 Peabody
rifles, and 20,000 Prussian needle-guns, raised in 1875 to 100,000
rifles of the best description.[174] The sanitary services and the
military hospitals had been organised by General Dr. Davila, a French
physician, of whom we have frequently spoken elsewhere, and who still
occupies the post of Director of Hospitals, &c., and of the Medical
School at Bucarest.[175]

[Footnote 173: The critics of her conduct during and immediately after
the close of the war were more bitter than at the present day, charging
her with perfidy of the worst kind, and predicting that she would become
a vassal state of Russia. See, amongst others, Ollier, _History of
Russo-Turkish War_, vol. i. p. 537.]

[Footnote 174: These details are from Von Wittinghausen's work on
Roumania, from a military point of view (Vienna: Carl Gerold's Sohn).]

[Footnote 175: The army organization has progressed rapidly since the
war of complete liberation, and it is estimated that in 1884 the total
forces of Roumania, regular militia, and Landsturm, will exceed 215,000
men. Full information will be found in Von Wittinghausen, Obedenare and
in the _Gotha Almanack_, 1881, p. 903, where the present state of the
forces is given in detail.]

III.

With an army thus constituted and disciplined, Prince Charles went into
the Russo-Turkish war as an ally of the Russians, although, at first,
not as an active one; and as the success of that terrible war relieved
Roumania from the last vestiges of her dependence upon Turkey, we will
endeavour to collect within as narrow limits as possible a few of the
leading events wherein she participated, and which affected her claim to
European attention.

That the Roumanians rendered valuable services to the Russians before
they co-operated actively in arms is well known, and also that the
latter had pressing need for such assistance. In May 1877 every facility
was given for the passage of troops over the Roumanian railways,
hospital equipments taking the precedence, and the Roumanian civil and
military hospitals opened their doors to receive the Russian sick; in
fact, disastrous as were the Russian reverses throughout the war, they
would have entailed far greater misery upon their wounded soldiers if it
had not been for the systematic aid which they received from the
Roumanians. Then, in preparing for the defence of their own bank of the
Danube, the latter were diverting the attention of the Turks, whose
gunboats amused themselves in making harmless excursions up and down the
river, pretty much as our fleet did between Besika Bay and the
Dardanelles, and they were making a line of defence for the Russians in
case they should have been obliged to recross tho Danube. Here it is
that we first make the acquaintance of Prince Charles, who travelled
from post to post on the river inspecting the defences. 'Born a
Hohenzollern, and reared an officer in the Prussian army,' says a writer
who accompanied him on this tour, 'it is little wonder that Prince
Charles of Roumania is above all things a soldier. Since his election to
the headship of the Principalities he has sedulously devoted a large
share of his energies to the improvement, or rather, in the first
instance, to the creation of a Roumanian army, and that his labour has
not been lost is apparent to any man having any conversance with
military matters, who has spent the last few weeks in the territory over
which Prince Charles holds sway.'[176] The prince had at his disposal
two army corps, each numbering 28,000 men, fully equipped, whilst the
militia, whose strength was about 100,000, was ready for mobilisation at
the shortest notice. As to the fighting qualities of these troops
writers differ, and we shall refer presently to the changes that took
place in the estimation in which they were held as the war progressed;
but even at the commencement there were those who lauded their coolness,
and said that they did not exhibit any of that tremor under fire which
is not wholly unnatural in young soldiers.

Before these men were called into action, however, their powerful allies
had suffered terrible defeats at the hands of the enemy. Dealing only
with that division of the Russian army which was engaged in Bulgaria,
we have to note the following events. On June 27, 1877, the main body of
Russians, or the 'army of operations,' as it was called, which was under
the command of the Grand Duke Nicholas, crossed the Danube in floating
ferries from Simnitza to Sistova, feints having been made to concentrate
and pass over in other places at the same time, so as to mislead the
Turks as to the intended point of crossing. Although some efforts were
made by the latter to prevent the landing on the Bulgarian shore, which
resulted in many being killed and wounded on either side, the Russians
effected the passage in safety and occupied Sistova, where they found
all the houses of the inhabitants sacked and plundered by the Turks, who
had beaten a retreat. The Emperor and the Grand Duke Nicholas were
either on the spot or in the immediate vicinity at the time of the
crossing, the headquarters being then at Ploiesti, on the Bucarest and
Orsova, railway, and from that time forward they sustained a series of
terrible reverses.[177]

As soon as a sufficient force was landed, they divided the army into
three sections, one of which, under General Ghourko, pressed on to the
famous Shipka Pass in the Balkans, where he encountered the brave enemy;
he occupied the pass on July 19. Another section under the Grand Duke
himself--part of the 9th Army Corps--marched onwards to the equally
well-known position of Plevna, where Osman Pasha was in command of the
Turkish forces, and where the Russians met with their first check.
General Kruedener, who commanded the attacking force, was not only
repulsed, but, being assailed in his turn by the Turks, he was badly
beaten. Two days afterwards, having been reinforced, he, in conjunction
with General Schahofskoy, commanding a force of 32,000 men, made a
second assault on Plevna, but they were again defeated with terrible
loss. On July 31 Ghourko met with a still more serious defeat. He had
penetrated with a Russo-Bulgarian force as far as Eski-Zagra (or Zara),
where he met the Turks under Suleiman Pasha, and, after a sanguinary
encounter, he was not only repulsed, but compelled to withdraw to the
Shipka Pass. Suleiman Pasha followed him and succeeded in occupying the
village of Shipka, but his attempts to drive the Russians from the pass
were unsuccessful, and on August 27 he discontinued his operations and
telegraphed for reinforcements, the Russians having in the meantime also
received theirs. Suleiman Pasha did not renew the attempt until
September 17; and, although at one time he had so far discounted his
success as to telegraph a victory to Constantinople, he was finally
repulsed.[178]

Added to these and other reverses in Europe, there came tale after tale
of disaster in Asia. Kars, which had been besieged by the Russians, was
successfully relieved by the Turks under Muktar Pasha, just as, a few
months later, Erzeroum was twice attacked by the Russians, who were as
many times repulsed. Then it was, when the skies were lowering on all
sides, that the Russian emperor and his princes and generals began to
look eagerly for aid from their ally north of the Danube; and then, for
the safety of his own country, Prince Charles entered the field with his
brave little army of Roumanians, and, recalling the days of Stephen and
of Michael, and emulating the prowess of the field of Kalugereni, he
succeeded in turning the tide of victory, and in saving the honour of
that ally, from whom lie subsequently received such poor acknowledgment.

[Footnote 176: _Daily News War Correspondence_, vol. i. p. 73.]

[Footnote 177: There are two monuments, one at Simnitza and the other at
Sistova, which are visible to the traveller as he passes up or down the
river. The first indicates the spot where the Russians embarked, whilst
the last is a handsome memorial to the slain.]

[Footnote 178: These operations are graphically described in the
interesting work of Col. Fife Cookson, _With the Armies of the Balkans_,
Cassell, 1880; in the _Daily News War Correspondence, Macmillan_, 1878;
and in Ollier's _History of the Russo-Turkish War_, Cassell.]

IV.

Up to August 25 we hear little or nothing of the movements of the
Roumanians, and in every case the fighting was done by the Russians,
either alone or in conjunction with their ruthless allies the
Bulgarians,[179] the operations being then spoken of as those of the
'Russo-Bulgarian' forces; but on the date named, or thereabouts, the
main portion of the Roumanian army crossed the Danube, and thenceforward
the Bulgarians are seldom mentioned, and the contest is prosecuted by
the 'allies,' or the 'Russo-Roumanian' army. At first the Roumanian
soldiers receive scant regard at the hands of the chroniclers: indeed,
on one or two occasions they are referred to with marked contempt.
Writing from Giurgevo on June 5 (that was before the Russians had
crossed the Danube at Simnitza), one of the correspondents
says:--'Whilst eating and talking, I heard one or two curious incidents
that occurred here when the Cossacks first came. In the course of
reconnoitring the country, five Cossacks, with an under-officer, came
upon a post of twenty Roumanian soldiers, likewise under the command of
an under-officer. The five Cossacks immediately arrested the twenty
Roumanians, brought them in to headquarters, and reported them to
General Skobeleff as prisoners of some unknown army. The Cossacks were
not quite sure, apparently, whether they were Turks or not, so they
thought that they had better bring them in, an operation to which the
Roumanians, although vastly superior in numbers, consented with not a
little murmuring.'[180]

This anecdote, it must be understood, was told by a party of Russian
officers, and is unworthy of critical examination, but it shows in what
estimation they held the men who were afterwards to be their
indispensable helpmates, and in a sense their leaders and preservers.
Other writers represented the Roumanian soldiers in a more favourable
light from the beginning of the war. Their coolness under fire has
already been mentioned, and the same correspondent, in describing the
defensive operations at Kalafat, says: 'I was struck with the admirable
conduct at this time of the Roumanian gunners, who never flinched in the
slightest degree under the trying ordeal.'[181] After their defeats
before Plevna and elsewhere, the Russians, too, began to estimate their
allies at something nearer their real value.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27