AHC/WI: "successful" peasant revolt in 1900s Romania

Halagaz · Mar 1, 2015

I've been reading up on an interesting bit of Romanian history. One of the major issues of the pre-WWI Kingdom of Romania was the situation of its peasants, which was pretty abysmal. They were repressed and their living standards kept in the dirt by a parasitic land-owning class. Politics and the voting system itself were biased towards the land-owners and upper classes while almost completely excluding the peasants. Things escalated into a legitimate peasant revolt in 1907, which spread across the country like wildfire before it was eventually crushed by the mobilized army.

Now, the revolt can't be called a complete failure - it managed to shock the self-absorbed political elites into caring a bit more for the peasant's plight and begin a slow and gradual reform. But it certainly can't be called a success.

My question is, what if the revolt was more successful? How much could the revolt accomplish without going into ASB territory? Force the government to make immediate and large concessions to their demands? Force the King to negotiate directly with them and ditch the entrenched political elites? Turn Romania into a revolutionary peasant's republic (I'm guessing that is ASB)?

What would it mean for the future of Romanian politics and Romania's position in the European web of alliances, friendships and enmities?
How might it influence certain other movements in other countries?
And there's the AHC part, so just how could this revolt realistically become more successful?

Uhura's Mazda · Mar 1, 2015

I can't contribute anything, but I find the Agrarian parties of pre-Soviet Eastern Europe rather fascinating, so I'll watch this with interest.

This is tangentially connected: http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/romania.htm - it's an extract from the memoirs of a Westerner who visited the Romanian Royal family in 1921 and includes a rather patronising depiction of a peasant hamlet.

Karelian · Mar 1, 2015

If things would start to look too harsh for the Romanian government, expect Hungarian nobles to start making really loud pleas for a swift Viennese intervention. Czarist Russia wouldn't be happy to see an uppity peasant republic on her borders either.

Halagaz · Mar 1, 2015

Uhura's Mazda said:
This is tangentially connected: http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/romania.htm - it's an extract from the memoirs of a Westerner who visited the Romanian Royal family in 1921 and includes a rather patronising depiction of a peasant hamlet.

Interesting, thanks. Though I believe the situation was already much better in 1921.

Karelian said:
If things would start to look too harsh for the Romanian government, expect Hungarian nobles to start making really loud pleas for a swift Viennese intervention. Czarist Russia wouldn't be happy to see an uppity peasant republic on her borders either.

It's nice to imagine a Romanian uppity peasant republic surviving and running around while Vienna is paralyzed by indecision and St. Petersburg by lack of confidence. But I agree, if things go that far, there is a distinct danger of A-H intervention. Still, not sure whether the rebels could plausibly do that well. And wouldn't the "non-belligerent" wing in Vienna still be too strong in 1907?

If they do, and the intervention goes through, Vienna might gain a new puppet...but also another headache, as it would be filled by a very hostile population and whatever government Vienna creates or restores would have about as much legitimacy as a small lump of mud.

eliphas8 · Mar 1, 2015

Karelian said:
If things would start to look too harsh for the Romanian government, expect Hungarian nobles to start making really loud pleas for a swift Viennese intervention. Czarist Russia wouldn't be happy to see an uppity peasant republic on her borders either.

Is Russia really willing to go through with this in the immediate aftermath of the 1905 revolution?

Halagaz · Mar 2, 2015

A bump...

...and a few more thoughts. The 1907 rebels and the sympathetic intelligentsia were anti-establishment, but they were not strongly or explicitly anti-monarchist, were they? If the rebels make enough headway, they may find it acceptable to demand a radical change in the country while still, technically, keeping the monarchy. Of course, the royal court's authority would have to be curbed and partially transferred to some Agrarian-controlled body, and it might be necessary to force Carol I to abdicate in favor of his heir, but at the end of the day there would still be a throne, a Hohenzollern sitting on it, and no real excuse for foreign meddling. This would also be more acceptable to the court itself than many other options.

A Russian military intervention does sound unlikely, and not just for revolutionary exhaustion and lack of confidence.

The Agrarian foreign policy would be much more favorable to St. Petersburg. The level of explicit pro-Russian sentiment in Bucharest may or may not increase (residual Narodnik influences and so on). But in any case the new government will certainly be leading Romania out of the Triple Alliance.

user23123 · Mar 3, 2015

Halagaz said:
How much could the revolt accomplish without going into ASB territory?

It depends on how do the revolt had succeeded,there can be :
- A political reform,but not necessary an overturn of the political establishment.
- An economical and social reform,for the peasants an agrarian reform,
- Both of them.

Halagaz said:
Force the King to negotiate directly with them and ditch the entrenched political elites?

If you think in terms of revolution,but if you think in term's of reforms you end up with the King forcing or putting pressure on the political elites to come up and adopt an agrarian reform,now the did come up with one but in 1921.

Halagaz said:
Turn Romania into a revolutionary peasant's republic (I'm guessing that is ASB)?

As far as i know,changing Romania's political regime was not part of there demands and goals.

Halagaz said:
What would it mean for the future of Romanian politics and Romania's position in the European web of alliances, friendships and enmities?

It depends on the achievements of the revolt,if the result is an agrarian reform,probably nothing,As for politics it depends on far it goes,

Halagaz said:
How might it influence certain other movements in other countries?

No idea

Halagaz said:
And there's the AHC part, so just how could this revolt realistically become more
successful?

More successful by having the city’s joining in,the army saying it will not fight the people.The king forcing an reform, that meets at least in part the demands of the revolts.Or the govenamt coming up to the conclusion that one is need now.
The did realize that an reform is needed after revolt,but it took them till 1921 to come up with one.

Magnum · Mar 3, 2015

What possible reason would the cities have in joining them? Because they won't do it out of empathy.

Also, if the cities find the situation so horrible as to feel the need to revolt, that would normally result in different results at the ballot box way before anyone actively starts a shoot-out with the army.

Without the cities, there is IMHO no way for the peasants to win, and if the cities join in, they will do so for their own selfish reasons, co-opt the peasants and then throw them a bone at the end of the day once the government caves and a new one takes its palce.

user23123 · Mar 3, 2015

Magnum said:
Also, if the cities find the situation so horrible as to feel the need to revolt, that would normally result in different results at the ballot box way before anyone actively starts a shoot-out with the army.

I belive you are exagering the power of voting in pre WWI Romania.

Halagaz · Mar 3, 2015

user23123 said:
More successful by having the city’s joining in,the army saying it will not fight the people.The king forcing an reform, that meets at least in part the demands of the revolts.Or the govenamt coming up to the conclusion that one is need now.
The did realize that an reform is needed after revolt,but it took them till 1921 to come up with one.

Magnum said:
Without the cities, there is IMHO no way for the peasants to win, and if the cities join in, they will do so for their own selfish reasons, co-opt the peasants and then throw them a bone at the end of the day once the government caves and a new one takes its palce.

Thing is, would the cities really join in? As far as I know they have a completely different, and smaller, set of problems than the villages.

So the peasants can't really win, and the best plausible outcome would be disturbing King Carol enough to make him force an earlier agrarian reform. While that would no doubt be good for Romania, it doesn't sound like it would change anything else.

Forcing a partial regime change (a break in the constant Liberal-Conservative cycle of cabinets) would also be too far, I assume? And making Vasile Kogalniceanu or someone like him the Prime Minister is even less possible.

user23123 · Mar 4, 2015

Halagaz said:
Thing is, would the cities really join in? As far as I know they have a completely different, and smaller, set of problems than the villages.

I won't call them smaller,and poverty affected both the cities and the villages,the problem is that the peasantry must join the slums,not attack them like they did with the Jewish slums in Moldova,yes the peasantry did have a problem with the land,and the Jews with citizenship,but they did have in common the problem of poverty and education.
Another problem is that is one city that really matter's and that is Bucharest.

Halagaz said:
So the peasants can't really win, and the best plausible outcome would be disturbing King Carol enough to make him force an earlier agrarian reform. While that would no doubt be good for Romania, it doesn't sound like it would change anything else.

In 1907 the peasants represented around 80%,so improving there improving the lives will have big impact on the country.The problem is that the reform was long overdue,not to mention that it had to wait till 1921 so an reform in one thousand nine hundred and something is a victory.
The problem is with the structure of Romania which was a especially economically speaking backwards country,in dire need of industrialization.No to mention the problem of education.So any agrarian reform can only be seen as a first step,an important one since will allow at least for a part of the peasants to seek a better education for there children,the problem is this first steam will only fix things so far,yes it will improve the condition of the peasants,it will allow some to seek a better education,but for a great improvement they need (as well as the rest of the country) education and industrialization.

Halagaz said:
Forcing a partial regime change (a break in the constant Liberal-Conservative cycle of cabinets) would also be too far, I assume? And making Vasile Kogalniceanu or someone like him the Prime Minister is even less possible.

The problem was not with the Liberal-Conservative cycle but with the lack of reform,not to mention that the cycle was there to solve the problem of political instability.
As for making Vasile Kogalniceanu it can be done but he also needs political support from his parties or from the progressive and reformist factions of the two parties.