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.
'The Russian authorities,' writes the same correspondent in the month of
August, 'are greatly pleased with the appearance and apparent efficiency
of the Roumanian artillery. Indeed, the Roumanian troops are everywhere
now spoken of with a consideration not previously evinced.'[182]
No more talk now of five Russians running in twenty Roumanians; and we
shall hear quite a different story presently. And not alone had the
soldiers risen in Muscovite esteem, but the Russians were beginning to
understand that there might be some virtue in the commanders also; for
about September 1, or a day or two previously, they so far admitted
their superiority as to invite Prince Charles to take the
command-in-chief of the whole Russo-Roumanian army before Plevna, which
he did, with the Russian general Zotoff as chief of his staff and second
in command.
On this occasion he issued an address to the Roumanian soldiers,
reminding them that success for the Turks would mean pillage and
desolation in their fatherland, assuring them that, although their
numbers were few, he had confidence in their courage, and in their
ability to retain for Roumania the good opinion which she deserved and
enjoyed amongst the nations of Europe. He concluded by announcing, in
modest terms, his own appointment as Commander-in-chief of the allied
armies.
[Footnote 179: According to Col. Fife Cookson the Bulgarians, during
this war, were guilty of atrocities as deep-dyed as any that had
previously caused such indignation in Europe; but he also says (p. 23),
'In this war armed Bulgarians resisting the Turks were looked upon as
rebels, and received no quarter.']
[Footnote 180: _War Correspondence_, vol. i. pp. 131-132.]
[Footnote 181: _War Correspondence_, p. 82.]
[Footnote 182: _Ibid._ p. 390.]
V.
On August 31, Osman Pasha had made a sortie against the besiegers, in
which he was eventually repulsed with heavy loss, and then it was that
under the new command a fresh attack on Plevna was decided upon. In
order, however, to understand the events which followed, and the part
taken therein by the Roumanians, it is necessary that we should briefly
describe the position and constitution of the forces engaged, and refer
to the operations which preceded the assault.
[Illustration: DEFENCES OF PLEVNA.]
The scene of the long-continued struggle is an undulating country, and
Plevna, the centre of attack and defence, is in the hollow of a valley
running in a northerly and southerly direction. The ground adjacent to
this valley was described by one of the war correspondents as consisting
of great solid waves with their faces set edgeways to the valley of
Plevna. To describe it in detail here would be impossible, but the
positions of the attacking and defending armies were very simple. The
Turkish positions were, roughly speaking, 'a horseshoe, with its
convexity pointing east, and the town of Plevna standing about the
centre of the base.' Another writer compares it to 'a reaping-hook, with
the point opposite Bukova, the middle of the curve opposite Grivica,
the junction of the handle close on to Plevna, and the end of the
handle at Krishine.'
The Russians had been surrounding this horseshoe, leaving the base open,
and the form of their attack on this occasion was in the line of their
environment straight to their front. The main point of interest in the
struggle, so far as we are concerned, is the Turkish redoubt of
_Grivica_ or _Grivitza_, the strongest of all the positions of defence:
this was situated on the toe, if we may so call it, of the horseshoe,
and directly opposite was the Russo-Roumanian centre.
The Russo-Roumanian army numbered about 80,000 infantry, of whom 28,000
were Roumanians, in two corps, under Colonels George and Alexander
Angelescu, and 10,000 cavalry, whereof 4,000 were Roumanians. The whole
Roumanian division was commanded by General Cernat; the Russians by
Baron Kruedener, General Kriloff, Prince Meretinsky, and the brave but
erratic General Skobeleff; and this army of 90,000 men was provided with
250 field and 20 siege guns. The number of the defenders under Osman
Pasha is estimated at about 70,000 men.
Here is a concise account of the attack. After the unsuccessful sortie
of Osman Pasha on August 31, in which the Russians recovered all the
positions temporarily occupied by the enemy, there was a partial
cessation of hostilities before Plevna until September 6. Meanwhile, on
the 3rd, a force of 22,000 Russians under Meretinsky, including a
brigade of Cossacks commanded by Skobeleff, succeeded, after a
sanguinary conflict, in driving 7,000 Turks from the village of Loftcha
and a defensive position west of it, which they permanently
occupied.[183] This operation had the effect of cutting off the supplies
of Osman Pasha from the south. An artillery duel then followed between
the whole of the attacking and defending armies, which lasted until the
11th, and, judging from the long and careful accounts of the
correspondents, the firing seems to have had little effect on either
side. In the interim the Roumanians were posted opposite the Grivitza
Redoubt, which, as we have already said, was the most formidable of all
the Turkish defences. Meretinsky and Skobeleff were in the vicinity of
the Loftcha road; and Kriloff and Kruedener were moving about in
co-operation, the former having posted himself on the Radisovo height
with the forces under his command.[184] Of the Grivitza and the
Roumanian operations we shall speak more fully hereafter. At the other
points of attack nothing serious happened until the 11th, when, a
general assault being ordered, the attack of Kriloff and Kruedener was
directed against a position known as the 'Mamelon,' south of Plevna,
whilst Skobeleff made a vigorous assault upon a double redoubt on the
south-east, the object being to carry these positions which were
believed to be the most vulnerable, whilst the Roumanians were 'holding'
the Turks at their strongest redoubt--the Grivitza. Supported by
Roumanian artillery, Kriloff attacked the 'Mamelon' three times during
the day, each time with fresh forces; but he was as often repulsed with
terrible loss, the third attack and defeat lasting only twenty minutes.
In fact, Kriloff and Kruedener were repulsed all along the line.
Skobeleff was somewhat more fortunate, having begun his attack after
Kriloff's second reverse. With a loss of 2,000 men he succeeded in
carrying the Turkish position; and at a further sacrifice of 3,000 he
held it for a time only, for it was commanded by the Krishine redoubt
(which was the ultimate object of his operations) on his left, and by
Plevna on the north. The Turks attempted in vain five times to dislodge
him. Skobeleff supplicated time after time for support, but it only
arrived when, after the sixth Turkish attack--this time successful--he
had been forced to withdraw, and was retreating to his old ground. The
closing scene of his day's operations has been frequently described, but
as his recent escapade gives fresh interest to anything concerning him,
it will lose nothing by repetition: 'It was just after this that I met
General Skobeleff the first time that day. He was in a fearful state of
excitement and fury. His uniform was covered with mud and filth, his
sword broken, his cross of St. George twisted round on his shoulder, his
face black with powder and smoke, his eyes haggard and bloodshot, and
his voice quite gone. He spoke in a, hoarse whisper. I never before saw
such a picture of battle as he presented. I saw him again in his tent at
night. He was quite calm and collected. He said, "I have done my best. I
could do no more. My detachment is half destroyed; my regiments do not
exist. I have no officers left. They sent me no reinforcements, and I
have lost three guns." They were three of the four guns which he placed
in the redoubt upon taking it, only one of which his retreating troops
had been able to carry off. "Why did they refuse you reinforcements?" I
asked. "Who was to blame?" "I blame nobody," he replied; "it is the will
of God!"'[185]
[Footnote 183: _War Correspondence_, vol. i. pp. 441-442. Cassell
(Ollier), pp. 404-405, where a plan of the Loftcha struggle is given.]
[Footnote 184: It is not clear what these were; probably the tenth and
thirtieth divisions, composing the fourth corps. Compare _Daily News War
Correspondence_, vol. i. pp. 443 and 444.]
[Footnote 185: _War Correspondence_, vol. i. pp. 482-483.]
VI.
We have thus loosely described how the Turks had effectually disposed of
the whole Russian attack excepting that of the Roumanians, and now we
must turn for a moment to enquire what was occurring at Grivitza. This
redoubt is constantly referred to by the correspondents as the most
formidable of all the Turkish positions. It is called 'the indomitable
Grivica redoubt;' 'the dreaded redoubt;' 'they' (the Russians) 'may
bombard it for a week, sacrifice a brigade of infantry, and not succeed
in taking it.' 'The Turkish positions,' says one writer, 'opposite to
the Roumanian section, are the stronger both by nature and art. But
there are but 28,000 Roumanians to 50,000 Russians. It seems logically
to follow that the function of the Roumanians is intended to be chiefly
of a demonstrative character.'[186] How 'demonstrative' it was we shall
see presently.
Already on the 7th and 8th, the Russian siege guns had been pushed
forward in closer proximity to the Grivitza, and on the 9th the
Roumanians worked their batteries nearer to it; whilst on the 10th their
infantry occupied a natural shelter-trench, from which they were picking
off the Turkish gunners in the redoubt. On the same day a couple of
companies of Russians, thinking the redoubt was evacuated, made an
attempt to take it, but when a small party of advancing skirmishers
arrived within a hundred yards of the foot of the glacis, they were
confronted by a row of rifle muzzles and Turkish heads, and thought it
more prudent to retire.
On the 11th, however, the Roumanians, with whom were three battalions of
Russians, made their 'demonstration' against the Grivitza simultaneously
with the Russian attacks on the other redoubts. Little attention appears
to have been paid to them in the slaughter of that terrible day, but on
the following the correspondents narrated the result of their
operations, and as those not only substantiated the title of the young
army to _elan_ and bravery, but really constituted the turning point in
the war, we will endeavour to follow their brief descriptions of the
events.
'It appears,' writes one of the chroniclers, 'that at half-past two
p.m. the redoubt was attacked by two Roumanian brigades each
consisting of four battalions, and three battalions of Russians.
The Roumanians attacked from the east and south-east, the Russians
from the south and south-west. The attack was made in the following
manner:--First a lino of skirmishers with men carrying scaling
ladders, gabions, and fascines among them. The latter had their
rifles slung on their backs, and were ordered in no case to fire
but merely to run forward, fill up the ditch, and place their
ladders behind. Then followed the second line in company column
formation for the attack, followed by the third line to support the
assault. At half-past two p.m. the attack was made by the
Roumanians, and it is said that by some mistake the Russians
arrived half an hour too late. Be that as it may, the assault was
repulsed, and all retired except two companies of infantry, which
rallied, and, keeping under cover, maintained a brisk fire against
the work.
'At half-past five the attack was renewed by a battalion of the
Roumanian militia, followed by two Russian battalions of the 17th
and 18th regiments. The redoubt was then carried, and the Turks
withdrew to the other redoubt a little to the north of the captured
work. But it was soon apparent that the redoubt could not be held
without reinforcements, and three Roumanian battalions with a
battery of artillery were ordered forward. They lost their way,
however, in the fog, and were thus precluded from rendering the
required assistance; consequently, when the Turks returned to the
attack, the allies were driven out.
'The third assault soon followed, and the work was finally captured
at seven p.m. Four guns and a standard were the trophies of the
feat of arms. More than once during the night did the Turks advance
with shouts of "Allah," but no serious attack was made. Thus, to my
surprise, when I reached the Plevna valley this morning, I beheld a
flagstaff up defiantly exposing the Roumanian flag in that hitherto
dreaded Grivica Redoubt.'[187]
How sanguinary had been the struggle which is here described in a few
commonplace sentences is manifest from the subsequent appearance of the
captured redoubt.
'The interior of this large work was piled up not only with dead
but with wounded, forming one ghastly undistinguishable mass of
dead and living bodies, the wounded being as little heeded as the
dead. The fire had hindered the doctors from coming up to attend to
the wounded, and the same cause had kept back the wounded-bearers.
There were not even comrades to moisten the lips of their wretched
fellow-soldiers, or give them a word of consolation. There they
lie, writhing and groaning. I think some attempt might have been
made, at whatever risk, to aid these poor fellows, for they were
gallant men, who, twenty-four hours before, had so valiantly and
successfully struggled for the conquest of that long-uncaptured
redoubt; and it was sad now to see them dying without any attempt
being made to attend to them. I could fill pages with a description
of this harrowing scene and others near it, which I witnessed, but
the task would be equally a strain on my own nerves and on those of
your readers.'[188]
But the Roumanians were not contented with holding their position.
Within 250 yards of the Grivitza was another Turkish redoubt whose fire
commanded the former, and that they attempted in vain to take on the
11th. Nothing daunted, however, they held their ground day after day,
and on the 18th they made another gallant but futile attempt to expel
the enemy from his position. 'It is said they will renew it,' writes one
of the spectators, 'and there is plenty of fight in Prince Charles's
gallant young army, but, in my opinion, there is little chance of
success unless they work up to the hostile redoubt by sap.'[189] On
September 24 they were progressing by trenches, and were only 80 yards
from the second Grivitza redoubt. 'Their fighting spirit and cheerful
endurance of hardships are admirable,' we hear. And again, on the 26th:
'The Roumanians are pushing forward their works against the second
redoubt with a perseverance and pluck worthy all praise, and which is
the more remarkable as the Russians are doing absolutely nothing on
their side.'[190] This contrast comes from the pen of the chronicler who
told the story of the twenty Roumanians being taken prisoners by five
Russians, and whose views of the relative merits of the combatants had
evidently undergone considerable modification; for he now says of the
Russians: 'They are waiting for reinforcements, which are arriving
slowly, and which, when they are here, will hardly more than cover the
losses by battle and by sickness during the last two months. I think
history offers no such example of a splendid army in such an utterly
helpless condition. The Roumanian generals are showing far more pluck
and energy.'[191]
[Illustration: PRINCE (NOW KING) CHARLES OF ROUMANIA, BEFORE PLEVNA
(_From a Photograph taken on the spot by F. Duschek_.)]
The Roumanians were unable to capture the second redoubt, but they
managed not only to hold their advanced position before Plevna, but to
give material assistance elsewhere in turning the siege into an
investment. On November 21 they captured Rahova, on the Danube, which
greatly facilitated operations against the doomed fortress and aided to
make the works of the allies impregnable. In the closing incidents of
the investment of Plevna the Roumanians took little or no part in
consequence of the position which they occupied. On the morning of
December 10, Osman Pasha made his brave but unsuccessful attempt to
break through the Russian lines, a struggle in which both sides
performed prodigies of valour. One whole Russian regiment was
annihilated in the effort to check the enemy, whose general was himself
wounded; and after having kept the Russo-Roumanian army at bay with
an inferior force for more than four months, he was at length obliged to
surrender with his whole army. Here is a glimpse of the final scene, as
the wounded hero met his conquerors:--
'The Grand Duke rode up to the carriage, and for some seconds the
two chiefs gazed into each other's faces without the utterance of a
word. Then the Grand Duke stretched out his hand and shook the hand
of Osman Pasha heartily and said: "I compliment you on your defence
of Plevna; it is one of the most splendid military feats in
history." Osman Pasha smiled sadly, rose painfully to his feet in
spite of his wound, said something which I could not hear, and then
reseated himself. The Russian officers all cried "Bravo! bravo!"
repeatedly, and all saluted respectfully. There was not one among
them who did not gaze on the hero of Plevna with the greatest
admiration and sympathy. Prince Charles, who had arrived, rode up,
and repeated unwittingly almost every word of the Grand Duke, and
likewise shook hands. Osman Pasha again rose and bowed, this time
in grim silence.'[192]
[Footnote 186: _Ibid._ p. 444.]
[Footnote 187: _Daily War Correspondence,_ vol. i. p. 485.]
[Footnote 188: _Ibid._ p. 487.]
[Footnote 189: _Daily News War Correspondence_, vol. i. p. 491.]
[Footnote 190: _Ibid._ p. 495.]
[Footnote 191: _Ibid._ p. 496.]
[Footnote 192: _Daily News Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 153.]
VI.
How easy it is to be magnanimous to a fallen foe; how difficult, with
some people, to be honourable in their dealings with an ally, especially
if he has been successful where they failed! The first is a claim of
superiority, and the higher the meed of praise awarded by us to the
vanquished the greater appears our victory; but the less we admit to be
due to our comrade in arms, the greater credit is left for ourselves.
And yet what will be the judgment of posterity upon the conduct of
Russia towards her brave ally who had saved her honour, if not the
integrity of her empire? Whatever she may think, the joy-bells would
have rung throughout a great portion of Europe, and certainly the party
then dominant in England would have rejoiced exceedingly, if she had
been driven back over the Pruth, and had been compelled to busy herself
with much-needed reforms in her own country instead of meddling with the
affairs of her neighbours and seeking to extend her already overgrown
possessions.
The war was never popular with the masses in Roumania, and although, at
the opening of the Chambers in November 1877, the royal speech predicted
that the fall of Plevna would mean a complete emancipation for
Roumania, much uneasiness prevailed concerning the designs of
Russia--uneasiness which was justified by subsequent events. On December
17, a load having been lifted from the mind of the nation by the
surrender of Osman Pasha, there was great rejoicing at Bucarest on the
occasion of the Czar's visit. He was on his way to St. Petersburg to
receive the congratulations of his subjects, having left Plevna behind
him, 'full of horrors.' He is dead now, but his son and all princes who
live by the sword would do well to peruse and reperuse the accounts of
the tragical scenes that the victors left upon the battle-field when
they departed to receive the ovations of the fickle populace. The
Roumanians feted their victorious allies, to whom it must be admitted
that we have here done ample justice in all their proceedings. But they
were the same Russians who, under Peter the Great, were reported to have
stolen the boots from the feet of their sleeping hosts; the same whose
hands the Roumanians had kissed when in 1829 they had released them from
the Turkish yoke; who it 1853 overran the Principalities with a view to
their permanent occupation, and who a few months after the events above
recorded betrayed their allies, and, for the risk they had run of once
more sacrificing their national existence, deprived them of Southern
Bessarabia, a province inhabited almost entirely by Roumanians.
Still the war brought its compensating advantages. The Dobrudscha which
the Roumanians received in exchange for Bessarabia, is proving a more
valuable acquisition both for trade and for strategical purposes than
was at first anticipated.
The Treaty of San Stephano, which was executed between Russia and Turkey
on February 19 [March 3], 1878, and was practically confirmed by the
Berlin Conference, contained amongst its other provisions this one (part
of Article V.): 'The Sublime Porte recognises the independence of
Roumania, which will establish its right to an indemnity to be discussed
between the two countries;' and (part of Article XII.): 'All the
Danubian strongholds shall be razed. There shall be no strongholds in
future on the banks of this river, nor any men-of-war in the waters of
the Principalities of Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria, except the usual
_stationnaires_ and the small vessels intended for river police and
custom-house purposes.' And Article XIX. gave to Russia that part of
Turkey bordering on the Danube, known as the Dobrudscha, which Russia
'reserves the right of exchanging for the part of Bessarabia detached
from her by the treaty of 1856,' and which, to the great indignation of
the Roumanians, she subsequently forced them to relinquish in 'exchange'
for her newly acquired territory.
But _n'importe_. Roumania was free; and this time she had fought for and
won her complete independence.
VII.
There is something unsettled in the nature of an independent
principality. The title fails to convey the idea of a free and sovereign
people, and we are always disposed to regard it as the possible province
of some annexing neighbour. So thought a writer on Roumania four years
ago, at the close of the war of liberation. 'Situated as it is, as an
independent State, it must sooner or later fall to Russia or Austria,
more probably to the former.'[193] So, in all probability, thought the
Russian diplomatists when they created a number of weak principalities
south of the Danube to serve them as stepping-stones to Constantinople.
And so, too, thought the Roumanians themselves. They knew that a name is
'neither hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging
to a man,' and so they 'doffed the name,' and on May 23, 1881, with the
concurrence of the great Powers of Europe, they invested their prince
and princess with the royal dignity, placing upon their sovereign's head
a crown made from the very guns which he had captured whilst he was
fighting for their liberties.
The poetic sentiment which attaches to this last act of the people of
Roumania brings vividly before our mind's eye the dramatic character of
her whole national career. Twice have we found the course of her history
lost in darkness--first in the clouds of antiquity by which the early
life of every nation is obscured; then in the still impenetrable gloom
of the so-called dark ages, which continued to hang over the Danubian
plains long after it was lifted from every other part of Europe.
Conquered first, and civilised by one who ranks amongst the greatest
heroes of the Roman Empire, she has inherited a high antiquity of which
she may be justly proud, remembering, however, that honourable ancestry
alone is not the measure of a nation's greatness. But then, for ages we
might almost say, the blast which swept across her plains with all the
fury of a tempest, but, as it travelled westward, broke and moderated
under the influence of the older civilisation, caused a second blank in
her existence; and when she once more rose from her prostration, she
found herself whole centuries behind the western peoples. But hardly had
she time to breathe again, and ere the wounds inflicted on her by the
Goths, and Huns, and Avars were yet fully healed, another ruthless
conqueror had laid hands upon her; and spite of all her efforts to
regain her liberty he held her fast, and sent her taskmasters as cruel
and exacting as the leaders of barbarian hordes had been before. And yet
her spirit was indomitable; bowed but not broken she continued to live
on, and ever strove for freedom. Mircea, Stephen, Michael, those are the
names which vindicate her claim to courage, and which shield her from
the charge of cowardly submission. And next she is the object of
contention between two neighbouring despots, the one endeavouring to
hold, the other to annex her. It is a marvelt hat between them she was
not dismembered limb from limb.
At length for her, as for all suffering peoples, the day of liberation
was at hand; the iron bonds which Oriental despotism had forged were
loosened by the agency of Western progress, and, lightened of her load,
she this time struck a more effectual blow for liberty, and was amongst
the first to unfurl the flag of freedom in the East. But a long
succession of barbarian governors, the license of repeated military
occupations, the proximity of Tartar savagery on the one side and of
Oriental effeminacy on the other, these incidents of her long-continued
vassalage have necessarily, and, it is to be hoped, but for a time, left
their evil influence upon the nation, which it is now the earnest
endeavour of her patriotic leaders to exterminate.
[Footnote 193: Ozanne, p. 226.]