Category: The History Show

Local history is as attractive as any, because it captures the lives of people in a given areas, both in terms of the collective mentality and the specificity of that area. 120 km away from Bucharest we have the city of Calarasi, the seat of the eponymous county. It has a population of only 65,000. It is situated on the left bank of the Borcea branch of the Danube river, which veers off around the area where the Bulgarian city of Silistra lies. Some of the notable people born here are physician and historian Pompei Samarian, writer Stefan Banulescu, historian Nicolae Banescu, actor Stefan Banica, and politician Mircea Ciumara.

This city had a certain importance before the 19th century. During the reign of Prince Mircea the Old, in late 14th and early 15th centuries, Calarasi is documented as being a postal station at the Danube crossing going to the fort of Durostorum, present day Silistra. Medieval documents speak about two names that the city had had. One is Lichiresti, which, during the reign of Michael the Brave, in late 16th century, was the moniker of people in the town. The second name, used at the present, means military horse riders guarding the crossing point over the Danube, defending the correspondence line to the capital Bucharest. In 1734, the village grew in importance, and is documented as a market town, dealing in agriculture and trade.

Between 1812 and 1828, Calarasi endured the hardship of the Russian-Turkish war, and of two harsh plague and cholera epidemics. In 1833, Calarasi became the seat of the county of Ialomita, which meant a bout of development. In 1852, during the reign of Prince Barbu Stirbey, the city bought back the land it lay on, and became a free city. The reign of Stirbey brought with it a new urban plan for the city, which meant a gridwork of parallel streets and a boulevard. Like all Romanian city, Calarasi had accelerated development after the foundation of the Old Kingdom, in 1859, as well as after it gained independence from the Ottomans in 1877, and after WWI.

Development continued in the 20th century. The most important transformation was the demolitions of the 1980s, which led to the loss of the old center of town, with the exception of a single building, the old town hall, which now houses the Calarasi Municipal Museum. We talked about the demolitions with museographer Florin Radulescu:

“That was a complex phenomenon, it started with the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. It was then that the persecution of Jewish people started in earnest. The central area of Calarasi was owned largely by that community. They had shops on the ground floor and homes on the second floor, some rented, some owned. This led to the first wave of emigration, the Jewish people left. In the Black Book of atrocities committed against the Jews, published in 1946, we can read about the nefarious contracts that the people in power signed with Jewish people, becoming co-owners, with an overwhelming ownership percentage. As the Jewish people left, the co-owners became full owners.”

After 1945, as politics changed, so did the situation on the ground. Here is Florin Radulescu:

“A change of regime came, the communists grabbed power. Houses were nationalized, at least in part. Others were just seized non-legally. The main institutions of the state took root in these central houses, where our museum is. I found in the US Library of Congress a phonebook from 1959, and on November 7 Street we find all the institutions. At some point, each institution built their headquarters, and these houses were left to rot. All these houses gradually became dilapidated.”

The historic center of Calarasi gradually degraded, against the growing poverty of an entire era. The solution of demolition was hastened by a natural phenomenon: the grand earthquake of March 4, 1977. Here is Florin Radulescu:

“Testimony from people who lived through those times say that many buildings had leaking roofs, had rats, were so insalubrious that they became unusable. In other words, it would have taken a lot of money to make them usable. Based on that, and on the wish of the regime to build new things, demolitions became feasible. Here, in the center of town, two blocks of flats were put up for English experts that came to help build two plants, one for making cellulose and paper, the other for making construction materials. For a very long time, in the area where the superstore was built, there was an old building known as the English Club, because it was frequented by the English. Then came the earthquake of 1977, which weakened all these buildings, and that is when the demolitions came. And this is how this building where our museum is came to be consolidated, and is still standing.”

The urban transformation of Calarasi had a few major moments, but the most impactful were in the 20th century.

On December 1,
2021, the Central Bank of Romania issued a new bank bill worth 20 Lei, that is
approximately 4 Euro, featuring Ecaterina Teodoroiu, a heroine of the First
World War. Also in December last year, the government adopted a law whereby
2022 is devoted to Smaranda Brăescu, the first female parachute jumper. The two
figures pay homage to the heritage and efforts of Romanian women throughout
history and a tribute to those who gave their lives alongside men. Ecaterina
Teodoroiu and Smaranda Brăescu were two women who experienced great hardships,
yet had the strength to continue pursuing their passion and vocation.

Ecaterina
Teodoroiu was the heroine-symbol of the First World War. The woman-soldier who
didn’t want to stay behind the frontline, but always sought to be in the heat
of battle, Ecaterina Teodoroiu was born in 1894 in Gorj County into a peasant
family. She was a hardworking pupil, and before getting admitted in a
high-school in Bucharest, where she wanted to become a teacher, she graduated
the German school in Târgu Jiu. She also enrolled in a medical school for
nurses. Romania entered the war in August 1916, a decision met with enthusiasm by
the population, many young people choosing to enlist. Ecaterina Teodoroiu was
among them, signing up for the hard life of war. For her participation in the battles,
Ecaterina was decorated and promoted to lieutenant, second class. On August 22,
1917, her regiment got stormed by the German army, sending the Romanian army on
the retreat. Ecaterina Teodoroiu got shot in the head by two bullets fired from
a machine gun. She died on the spot. Historian Ioan Scurtu says Ecaterina
Teodoroiu became a legend of the Great War.

Ever since
1917-1918, Ecaterina Teodoroiu became a legend. Those who fought beside her,
part of her own unit, told stories of her bravery, courage and heroics. The fact
that a woman got to fight in actual battles become highly symbolic. When she
got out of hospital, she got requests to stay work for the Red Cross together
with other women, including Queen Mary, but she refused. She said she belonged
on the frontline, was eager to stay and fight. In 1921, as Romania marked 100
years since Tudor Vladimirescu’s uprising, her earthly remains were transported
to the monument in Mărășești in Târgu Jiu. A special sarcophagus was built in
her honor by sculptor Milița Pătrașcu. King Ferdinand and Queen Mary, historian
Nicolae Iorga, Marshal Alexandru Averescu as well as everyone who contributed
to leading Romania and building a symbol for the 800,000 Romanians who died in
the war, sought to praise Ecaterina Teodoroiu.

Smaranda Brăescu
was born in 1897 in Tecuci, eastern Romania. She was the first woman-pilot, the
first woman-parachute jumper and the first woman to train military pilots in
Romania. She displayed true grit and followed her passion with extraordinary
tenacity. She became European champion in parachute jumping in 1931 at the age
of 34, when she jumped 6,000 meters, setting a new European record, as well as world
champion in 1932, when she jumped 7,400 meters at the Sacramento tournament in
the United States, setting a world record that would last 20 years. She is the
recipient of the Aeronautics Virtue Order, Golden Cross class. She was equally
devoted to her intellectual training. Smaranda graduated the Fine Arts Academy
in Bucharest, the decorative art and ceramics department.

Ana-Maria
Sireteanu, Smaranda Brăescu’s great granddaughter, recalls Smaranda Brăescuțs
strength of character could not be broken even after a very serious accident:

In Satu Mare, after
a jump, her parachute swept her away and she injured both her legs. This could
also be a sign for anyone looking for earthly remains, as her leg injuries
would show. She spent 5 months in the hospital and a very talented doctor
performed surgery and she managed to recover. 7 months later, after having
sustained such extensive injuries, she managed to set the European and world
records, in 1931 and 1932. That is evidence of her extraordinary motivation and
willingness to bring glory to her country.

During the war,
Smaranda was a member of the famous white squadron, a squadron of medivac
planes on the eastern front and later on the western front in Transylvania,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia. She signed a memorandum condemning the rigged
elections of November 1946. Wanted by the communist authorities, Smaranda Brăescu
disappeared. She is thought to have spent the last days of her life at a
nunnery, dying on February 2, 1948, aged 51. (VP)

At the end of WWI, the world was in search mode. It was searching for peace, for a better world, but at the same time searching for a way to restore the old order of things. Old and new ideas were clashing. In that tumult, revolutionary ideas seemed to many as the best idea. The war had generated great hardships, and radical solutions had gained ground, as had the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia, Hungary, and Germany. Against this background, in the center of Bucharest on 13 December 1918, a labor strike by workers in print shops would come to a tragic conclusion. 6 were left dead and 15 wounded when the army intervened against people demanding their rights.

Of course, this brief description merits explanation, and historian Ioan Scurtu brings it to us:

“In Bucharest, the headquarters of the Socialist Party was right in the center of the city, behind the Kretzulescu Church. The workers started marching from there, aiming to reach the Royal Palace. First they took a detour on Campineanu Street, seeking to turn onto Victoria Avenue. When they got close to the National Theater, the army set up a barricade. The workers were asked to disperse, but they insisted on shouting their grievances in front of the palace. They did not back down, shouting slogans such as Freedom!, and We want Bread!, or We want affordable rent!. The army opened fire. In the press release the next day, the government said that it was a riot, that the army had retaliated when it was shot upon by the workers. 6 were left dead and 15 wounded, all of them workers. The press release was a red herring, and Liberal politician I. G. Duca in his memoirs clearly states that the army was the only party shooting, and that the violence had been extreme.”

The protest was small scale, but it gained notoriety at the time, as well as after 1945. The communist regime installed by the Soviet army blew out of proportion the reaction of the regime to the march. Here is Ioan Scurtu:

“The number of dead has been disputed. When I got to Bucharest, in 1957, and up to 1990, near the partially rebuilt building of the National Theater there was a monument with a sign saying that, on 13 December 1918, 102 workers had been killed upon orders from the bourgeois government. In 1967 I visited Gheorghe Cristescu, who had been Socialist Party secretary, and had become Communist Party secretary. Among other things, he told me about the number of the dead claimed by the monument.. He told me he had told his comrades to go to each sector of the city and register the number of dead on that day, 13 December 1918. 102 had died that day, but obviously most of them had nothing to do with that movement.”

We asked Ioan Scurtu if the organizers of the protest had been inspired by the Bolshevik revolution model, which was the worst accusation brought against the protesters.

“The Socialist Party had its demands at that time. It was demanding the removal of the bourgeoisie and of exploitation, it demanded a republican Romania. But the protest itself was not under these demands. Of course, the government tried to chalk the protest off to political motives. In the press release it was said that, in collusion with the Bolsheviks in Moscow and the Communists in Budapest, the workers sought to upturn the existing social order. The very next day, on 14 December, the government published the executive order to break up land holdings above 100 ha in order to distribute land to the peasants. The decree was meant to prevent uprisings in villages. The peasants were pleased with the land distribution and the agrarian reform.”

The memory of the behavior of the Russian army in Romania in the winter of 1917 to 1918 was not a pleasant one for Romanians, both the authorities and the population. The anarchy and violence perpetrated by the Russians drunk on Bolshevism were extremely destabilizing. We asked Ioan Scurtu if the government acted excessively because of the potential for major instability.

“We should once again go to I. G. Duca. He said that, after about 7 years from the events, he spoke to the general who had ordered the repression, and he boasted that he ordered the army to open fire upon his own initiative. He, General Margineanu, supposedly had called PM Ion Bratianu, who told him that under no circumstances should he open fire. He was told to find means to disperse the protesters without extreme violence. Margineanu supposedly said that he had assumed responsibility, and so he had managed to stifle Romanias leaning towards Bolshevism. It is certain that the government did not denounce this action, and General Margineanu was decorated by King Ferdinand.”

The print shop labor strike of 13 December 1918 was a marginal episode for Romanian society at the time. However, it is of importance for forming a complete picture of what was the end of an era.

One of the great reformers of Transylvania in the 18th century was Baron Samuel von Brukenthal. He was not only a law expert, but also a passionate art collector. The National Museum in Sibiu, that bears his name, is proof of Brukenthals respect for human values and of his work as reformer of the Habsburg state. A German ethnic, Samuel von Brukenthal was born 300 years ago, in 1721. Both his parents died while he was still a child. At 15, he dedicated himself to studying. Transylvania was, at that time, part of the Habsburg Empire, which had freed it from the Ottoman occupation at the end of the 17th century.

Historian Thomas Sindilariu tells us more about the most important moments of the barons life: ”By the time when Samuel von Brukenthal was born, Transylvania had been a part of the European world for 30 years. Under the 1691 Diploma Leopoldinum, Transylvania had become part of the Habsburg Empire, which included, alongside Transylvania, Banat and Partium, the following countries of today: Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Austria, parts of Serbia, North Italy, South Germany and Belgium with its capital Brussels. Brukenthals biography is clear proof of the great potential that a large European framework, that enjoyed long-term peace, had to offer.”

Brukenthal was not an aristocrat by birth. In 1724, while he was 3, his father, was ennobled and received the noble name von Brukenthal. His mother, Susanna, was part of the aristocratic family of Conrad von Heydendorff. Social status was everything at that time. The young Samuel left his native area to go to studies. There he would have access to the highest circles, those of the masonry. Thomas Sindilariu: ”In 1743, before going to studies in Halle an der Saale, he had been accepted among the members of the newly set up masonic organization Aux trois canons. Quite surprisingly, Brukenthal found itself in the middle of a society entirely devoted to the ideal of humanism and enlightenment, whose members were part of the intellectual elite of the empire. In Halle, he became an active freemason. There he founded and led a masonic organization connected to The Three Globes, believed to include the entourage of King Frederic the Great.”

Through the masonic network, Brukenthal became known also due to his skills and appointed in higher positions in the empires administration. He led Transylvanias aulic chancellery in Vienna, winning the respect of his collaborators and of Empress Maria Theresa. It was also there, that he found opposition to his plans. Thomas Sindilariu: ”Objective arguments had always been his strong point, so that the empress would often agree to his ideas to the detriment of those of other high ranking officials of the empire. In fact, Brukenthals ideas proved to be the most important reforming steps taken at that time. The most important reform he decisively implemented was the fiscal reform. It referred to taxing people and properties and included, as final perspective, the taxation of the noblemens huge properties. This made many of them hate Brukenthal. The partial implementation – that is without including the taxation of the noblemen – of the new taxation system in 1770, generated a huge increase in revenues to the state.”

Samuel von Brukenthal became a governor of Transylvania, a position in which he again proved his skills. There he had the chance to approach the most difficult problem of the empire, which concerned the peasants. Thomas Șindilariu: ”Starting in 1774, Brukenthal led the Government, the highest civil authority in Transylvania. Between 1776 and 1787 he served as its governor. With perseverance, he managed to transform Transylvania’s administration into a mechanism that worked by itself. He was the embodiment of virtues of the Enlightenment period and his actions proved his concern for the main problem of the Habsburg Empire — that of the peasantry.

He looked for ways to decrease the peasants duties to the noblemen, improve their economic situation and increase their financial possibilities as contributors. From this viewpoint and from a military perspective, the expansion of the empires south-eastern military borders between 1762 and 1766, in which Brukenthal played a decisive role, was also meant to improve the situation of peasants. Being a peasant within the military border meant a far better legal position than that of servant on the noblemens properties. ” Samuel von Brukenthal, one of the outstanding personalities of the XVIII century Transylvania, died in 1803 in Sibiu, aged 81. (EE)

The southeast European world in the first half of the 19th century was undergoing rapid change in the light of modern ideas, especially the nationalist idea. Europe was in the post-Napoleon era, the Holy Alliance formed by Russia, Austria and Prussia had set up a new order on the continent. The liberalism of the 18th century aimed to encourage national capitalism, and in Southeast Europe anti-Ottoman sentiments were expressed more and more.

The main power in the Romanian space was now Russia, and the history of the birth of modern Romania cannot be understood well without looking at Russias presence and actions. It was an ultra-conservative movement which had tried to apply some European reform ideas. The tradition of reforms started with Czar Peter the Great (1672-1725), in the early 18th century. Czar Alexander I (1777-1825) started to reform the Russian state after the French model, but the instability and terror caused by the French Revolution between 1789 and 1795 prevented him from doing that. The Holy Alliance of the three powers that defeated Napoleon I committed to suppress any attempt at revolution, and the upending of the established order.

At the same time, the Romanian space had been for centuries in the grip of an imperial power that was equally ultra-conservative, the Ottoman Empire. Here European reforms penetrated even harder than in Russia, which had a European style elite leadership. The Ottoman Empire had imposed in the Romanian Principalities the so-called Phanariote rulers, from elite Greek families, whose administration proved corrupt and feckless. Romanian European elites would develop a virulent anti-Ottoman rhetoric, as they sought support from an apparently liberal Russia.

In 1826, Russia and the Ottoman Empire had signed the Akkerman convention, ending the Phanariote era. Ionita Sandu Sturdza in Moldavia and Grigore IV Ghica in Wallachia became the two Romanian princes to occupy the thrones in Iasi and Bucharest. A 7 year term on the throne was imposed, and the princes were elected by the boyars, the traditional nobility. The convention granted the principalities the right to free international commerce. However, in 1828, war broke out between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, after the Ottomans violated the convention and forbade passage to Russian ships in the Black Sea straits. This war was one of a chain of Russian-Turkish wars that started in early 18th century. In 1829, the Russians emerged the victors, and forced the Turks to sign the Treaty of Adrianopolis, the city called Edirne now, with great consequences upon the history of Romanians.

Constantin Ardeleanu is a professor with the Lower Danube University of Galati, he wrote extensively about the importance of the Danube in the history of Romanians in the 19th century. In his opinion, the Treaty of Adrianopolis is the first milestone in the birth of the Romanian modern state:

“It meant so much for the development of the Romanian state. It is a crucial moment in the history of Romania, but we dont always grant it enough attention. That is because this is the moment in which, as a result of the agreement between the two powers, as a result of the fact that the Principalities gain commercial freedom, as a result of the ending of the Ottoman economic monopoly, Western capitalism arrived in the Romanian space. The Treaty of Adrianopolis is a major historical landmark for the beginning of the economic modernization of the Principalities, by connecting them to the global market. There is no doubt that some capitalist relationships existed before, but starting at that moment, in 1829, the Romanian Principalities emerge on the world map as a major hub for the grain trade, not only on the Istanbul market, but in the entire global economy. This is the moment when economic modernization changes the two principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia.”

After the war, the treaty was a major breach in the Ottoman monopoly over the Romanian principalities. It was signed on September 14, 1829, and it granted Russia the status of protecting power for the two countries. The Ottoman Empire still acted as suzerain power, but could not longer make decisions unilaterally. The southern border of Wallachia was the navigable portion of the Danube, and, more importantly, the Danube ports of Turnu, Giurgiu, and Braila, under Ottoman control, returned to Wallachian control. Freedom of navigation on the Danube was granted for Wallachian trade ships, and Moldova gained the right to develop the port of Galati. In this way, grain trade became the main source of income for the two Romanian states.

The Treaty of Adrianopolis confirmed Russian military presence on Romanian territories. Until 1834, the Russian administration tried to reform the two countries with a set of liberal reforms, much more liberal than in Russia itself. To this end, the first constitutional project in the Principalities was the Organic Regulation introduced by Russian governor Pavel Kiseleff. Historians today agree that the reforms applied by the Russians in Wallachia and Moldavia were, in fact, experiments to evaluate the effect this kind of changes would have over a population. After 1834, Romanians managed to prove that a simple experiment can bear fruit.