<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
All
\nthings considered, the foundation of Romania, as it is today, was laid in early
\n1859. Specifically, that meant the twofold election of colonel Alexandru Ioan
\nCuza, on January 5th and 24th, as the ruling prince of Moldavia
\nand Wallachia, in then the capital of the two Romanian Principalities. The
\nperson of a single ruling prince was the epitome of a tremendous amount of
\neffort the elites had made, for two generations, in a bid to build a Romanian
\nstate following the modern European model. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We
\nhave made an attempt to reminisce the key moments of that age at national but
\nalso at international level. Joining us in our endeavour was historian Marian
\nStroia, of the Romanian Academy’s Nicolae Iorga Institute of History. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marian Stroia:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For the south-eastern space, the most important event with a strong
\nbearing on the situation of Romanian principalities is the Crimean War,
\n1853-1855. It was a pretext the Russians resorted to, so that they could put pressure
\non the Ottoman Porte to grant rights to the Ottoman Empire’s Christian nations.
\nIn effect, it was a mere pretext for their expansionist tendency towards
\ncentral and eastern Europe. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The
\nRomanian elite and the Romanian society were caught between three empires that
\nmeant no good for Romania, as it was at that time. They were the Austria-Hungarian,
\nthe Tsarist and the Ottoman Empires. Through negotiations, the elite succeeded
\nto find the most favourable of the three empires. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Historian Marian Stroia:<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We can say that, broadly speaking, the Ottoman Porte was more receptive
\nto Romanians’ wants and needs and was also less conservatory than Russia. All modernization
\nefforts the Romanians had attempted after 1848 benefitted from its low-key
\nsupport. Whereas Russia, at the other end of the scale, sought to impede all
\nreformist attempts. During his reign, colonel Cuza tried to avert any situation
\nthat could jeopardize the young Romanian state in its relationship with Russia.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In 1855,
\nRussia was defeated in the Crimean War. The Treaty of Paris in 1856 provided
\ngreat novelties as regards the historical destiny of the Romanian space. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marian Stroia:<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
After 1856, there is another crucial moment. Just as Dumitru Bratianu had told
\nhis brother, Ion C. Br\u0103tianu, in 1849, when Russia would get soft, then
\nthe Romanians could achieve all their national objectives. The most important consequence
\nof the year 1856 meant that the Romanian space was no longer under the Russian-Turkish
\nsuzerainty, being under the protectorate of the great European states. At one
\nfell swoop, the political situation changed, making it possible for a much wider
\ncontext to occur, for the development of the domestic political energies.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The
\nstrongest domestic energies were indeed unleashed. The Unionist, Europhile party
\nwas the most tumultuous one, being capable of writing memorable pages of
\nhistory at that time. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marian Stroia:<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Ad-hoc
\n(purpose-held) election of 1857 made the most important event in the domestic
\nRomanian space. On that occasion, the Romanian nation’s political identity
\nlandmarks were expressed. Among them, definitely worth mentioning here, apart
\nfrom political autonomy, neutrality and the separation of state powers, is the fundamental
\nissue of the foreign prince, viewed as a necessary prerequisite of the young Romanian
\nstate, in a bid to draw its own roadmap towards independence. That was point
\nnumber 4, which was no less important than the others, the enthronement of a
\nforeign prince. Ruler Alexandru Iona Cuza’s reign was an intermediary stage in
\nthe Romanians’ undertaking to gain their national independence.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The
\nRomanian elites came up with a simple geopolitical and geostrategic scheme. Lying
\nat the crossroads between the three empires, Moldavia and Wallachia had to look
\nfor support outside the zone where empires clashed. The ultimate solution to
\nthe quest for support was France, the great model of modern ideas, the
\nstaunchest carrier of the message of the universality of man and his rights.
\nToday, historians have unanimously agreed that Romania was a creation of
\nFrance. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marian Stroia once again, with the details.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A crucial role in the Romanians’ endeavour to carry the union through and
\nforge their own way to independence, that was played by France. Cuza had
\nWestern training. In 1845-1846 he graduated from the Stanislas College in the
\nFrench capital. His own shape-up as well as the shape-up of the entire unionist
\nmovement of 1848 were closely linked to the West and to France, especially. For
\nthe Romanians, the most consistent support was provided by the French state,
\nthen headed by Napoleon III. It is something that cannot possibly be denied. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Union
\nrequired certain forms of sacrifice, made by the elites and the grassroots
\nalike, according to their possibilities. However, the example was set by the
\nelites. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The historian Marian Stroia:<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For its greater part, the Romanian elite back then was inspired
\nby a complete material disinterest and by an utterly unusual patriotic spirit. Costache
\nNegri, one of Cuza’s aides and the Principalities’ ambassador to Constantinople,
\nhad a complete state financial support for his funeral, so he didn’t even have
\nenough money for his own interment. And when Ion C. Br\u0103tianu left for
\nDusseldorf to obtain Carol de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen’s candidacy for the throne
\nof the Principalities, he had to sell two of his estates so that he could pay for his
\ntrip and his stay in the Sigmaringens’ German residence. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Cuza
\nwas jointly elected on January the 5th and the 24th,
\n1859, in Moldavia and Wallachia. That clearly meant both principalities were definitely
\ntaking a European path. <\/p>\n
(EN)<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Union of Romanian Principalities on January the 24th<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":90486,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[41141],"tags":[30175,42911,42912,34123,31489],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-131420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-history-show","tag-election","tag-principality","tag-suzerainty","tag-treaty","tag-union"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n