Romania enters WWI in 1914

I am inclined to disagree.

To take part "right from the start" Romania has to declare war somewhere around the austrian DoW against Russia (6th August 1914). To act quickly after DoW against Austria as IOTL for that Romania has to start mobilization at least end of July ... absolute hig-time of harvest (different to OTL DoW end of August 1916, end of August the harvest is in its last rows).
Somehow I doubt, that Romania would be able to fully mobilize their units completly ITTL, given the level of literacy and informational as well admistrative infrastructure in the region of its peasant-soldiers. Likely many won't even show up at their garrisons.

Let's assume - for the sake (?) of the romanians - that Conrad and the austrians completly ignore this build-uip of forces at their borders to Romania and continue their already f--ked up deployment as IOTL and midth to end of August - same imt as austrian 1st Aermy advances towards Krasnik - the worse than IOTL in 1916 equipped and manned romanian armies attack as IOTL into Hungary.
There tzhey will meet almost the same they met IOTL : some border guards, who quickly retreat. Due to their even worse logistics (more animals still on harvesting duties or "on the way" they won't get further as IOTL, where they stopped for ... logistical reasons.

Instead of being sent to reinforce austrian 3rd army and esp Army Group Kövess, austrian 2nd Army will be deployed to Transsylvania (most of it). For the galician front this will mean :
lesser holes plugged than IOTL in austrian 3rd Army
earlier loss of Lemberg (if russian 3rd Army aka Gen. Ruzsky gets his ass moved, something he isn't well known for)
Kövess, one of the few capable austrian commanders would with his lesser forces retreat towards the Carpathians earlier - to set up defensive perimeters.
Probably the "rest" will go mainly as IOTL in Galicia in 1914, with "stopping"the russians for the same reasons at the feet of the Carpathians as IOTL : logistics.

Meanwhile, the finally aseemble austrian 2nd Army, though still not at "standards" of the germans/french/russians but more than well above romanian standards two years earlier than IOTL will drive back the romanians at least to the border passes again.

Meanwhile Bulgaria will most likely become much ealier inclined to join the CP, as Romania, quite occupied in Transsylvania is an open invitation to grab the Dobruscha. Though they won't support in late 1914 the austrians in Serbia as IOTL 1915, they would invade Romania.

Romania will now - attacked on two sides - cry for russian help which will cause lesser russian troops in Galicia and ... Poland, increasing the chance of a CP-success at the battle at the Vistula with taking of Lodz, Ivangorod and maybe even Warsaw at the change from 1914 into 1915.

and there are several other ... opportunities how things would/could go.

A romanian entry in August 1914 is everything ... but nowhere near a war-winner - for the Entente.


There's also the small matter of the six Russian divisions that were guarding the Romanian frontier. With the Romanians as allies, they present some interesting opportunities. the logical use is to reinforce Romania and that eliminates any Austrian offensive against them.

As for Bulgaria joining the war earlier, that smacks of desperation. the Bulgarians are pretty cautious and take their sweet time. Romanian intervention makes the Bulgarians less likely to help as they wouldn't have the Turks to help them, the Austrians are quite busy and the Serbs and Russians still in the fight. Bulgaria is only fighting if they think they can win. they aren't sure of that in August 1914 OTL and they would be less likely ITTL.

So the most likely result:

The Austrians are unable to send B-Staffel to Poland. The Russians have a much larger advantage and punish Conrad for his stupidity. Meanwhile, the Romanians aided by the six Russian divisions and the Serbians make a real Southern Front for the Austrians.

Politically, the Bulgarians and the Ottomans hesitate. With the Russians are real force in the Balkans, the Bulgarians know they might go down hard. The Ottomans will fear a possible Entente Bulgaria. Given the huge gains that Romania and Serbia are expecting, they might be willing to bribe the Bulgarians with the territory they lost in the Second Balkan War
 

NoMommsen

Donor
There's also the small matter of the six Russian divisions that were guarding the Romanian frontier.
I assume you mean the IOTL 7th. Army consisting, counted together, of 5 1/2 divisions according to mobilization schedule : 4 reserve infantry divisions (62., 63., 64. and 71.), one cavalry division (8.) and two cavalry regiments (Crimerian Horse cavalry Regiment and 7. Don Cossack Regiment).
The army placed at the Odessa district to actually guard agains the romanians IOTL, consisting of "reserve" formations, which were rendered by russian officers as generally inferior (Rennekampf left many of his reserve troops [56th Inf.Div. and 73rd Art.Brig.] behind because he thought he could not rely on them in battle).
With the Romanians as allies, they present some interesting opportunities. the logical use is to reinforce Romania and that eliminates any Austrian offensive against them.
Your logic misses the fact, that the romanian army, despite its rather desperate training and equipment situation, was at that time rendered a

powwerfull force, even if only for its sheer numbers. With that in mind :
Would the russians render it necessary to have to reinforce/support 3 full (at least on paper) romanian armies (OTL forces) with russian low-grade forces counting for about a single army-CORPS against mere borderguards ?

IMO the logical use for them would be to reinforce i.e.the for reinforcements screaming 4th (Saltza) and 5th (Plehwe) armies or use them as reserves for russian 8th or 3rd armies.

As for Bulgaria joining the war earlier, that smacks of desperation.
What doe you m,ean with "smacks" ? Anyway, you seem to sense a lot of "desperation", when countered.
the Bulgarians are pretty cautious and take their sweet time. Romanian intervention makes the Bulgarians less likely to help as they wouldn't have the Turks to help them, ...
Aahm, wrong (again). Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire conclude a though secret treaty of non-aggression during the mentioned "bazaaring" time.
ITTL the opportunity grabbing the Dubruscha from an already "occupied" Romania might even convince them, that the by the ottomans wished and offered full military alliance might even be a better deal.

... the Austrians are quite busy and the Serbs and Russians still in the fight.
No change to the situation IOTL.

Bulgaria is only fighting if they think they can win. they aren't sure of that in August 1914 OTL and they would be less likely ITTL.[/QUOTE]Since ITOL were free to backstab them. But ITTL the romanians are, as said, "tied" up in Transsylvania
So the most likely result:

The Austrians are unable to send B-Staffel to Poland. The Russians have a much larger advantage and punish Conrad for his stupidity. Meanwhile, the Romanians aided by the six Russian divisions and the Serbians make a real Southern Front for the Austrians.
Another "inaccuracy" :
B-Staffel, aka austrian 2nd Army was IOTL send NOT to Poland, but to western Ukraine, these days called "Eastern Galicia".
ITTL it will go (mainly) to Transsylvania and against the Bukowina (IMO a much more likely deployment area for the 5 1/2 russian reserve divisions to support the russian 8th army against group Kövess).
Austrian 5th and 6th armies were maybe not capable of defeating the Serbs and conquering Serbia but were i.e. well capable to throw them out of Syrmia, when Putnik tried his attack.
(Would be helpfull to stay a wee bit more with some the historical facts.)
Politically, the Bulgarians and the Ottomans hesitate.
What the ottomans and bulgarians did IOTL but might do lesser ITTL, due to the bigger attraction of a firmer military alliance for the latter.
... Given the huge gains that Romania and Serbia are expecting, they might be willing to bribe the Bulgarians with the territory they lost in the Second Balkan War
What the russians AND the Entente IOTL actually tried ... only that especially the Serbs, to a lesser extent also the Romanians subbornly refused to do.
Much to the anger and ... desperation of the russians (Sazonov particularly).


However, as @Ultima Ratio and @FillyofDelphi have pointed to :
The build-up of romanian forces as well as the diplomatic activities and further intel about the "comming closer" of the romanians and the russians will most likely change deployments, preparations and objectives of the austrians considerably.
 
Your logic misses the fact, that the romanian army, despite its rather desperate training and equipment situation, was at that time rendered a

powwerfull force, even if only for its sheer numbers. With that in mind :
Would the russians render it necessary to have to reinforce/support 3 full (at least on paper) romanian armies (OTL forces) with russian low-grade forces counting for about a single army-CORPS against mere borderguards ?

Depends on the diplomatic situation. Romania isn't just regarded as a powerful force, she really is one. Sure her equipment is weak in 1914 but from a relative POV, she's far stronger than in 1916. The Austrians get pretty weak after their frontline divisions get mauled in August

IMO the logical use for them would be to reinforce i.e.the for reinforcements screaming 4th (Saltza) and 5th (Plehwe) armies or use them as reserves for russian 8th or 3rd armies.

What doe you m,ean with "smacks" ? Anyway, you seem to sense a lot of "desperation", when countered.
Aahm, wrong (again). Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire conclude a though secret treaty of non-aggression during the mentioned "bazaaring" time.
ITTL the opportunity grabbing the Dubruscha from an already "occupied" Romania might even convince them, that the by the ottomans wished and offered full military alliance might even be a better deal.

The lack of any logical reason for the Bulgarians to join the war because Romania does. It weakens the case for an Austro-German victory and therefore the case for the Bulgarians to join the war. Despite all these secret deals, both the Ottomans and the Bulgarians delay joining the conflict OTl


Since ITOL were free to backstab them. But ITTL the romanians are, as said, "tied" up in Transsylvania
Another "inaccuracy" :
B-Staffel, aka austrian 2nd Army was IOTL send NOT to Poland, but to western Ukraine, these days called "Eastern Galicia".
ITTL it will go (mainly) to Transsylvania and against the Bukowina (IMO a much more likely deployment area for the 5 1/2 russian reserve divisions to support the russian 8th army against group Kövess).
Austrian 5th and 6th armies were maybe not capable of defeating the Serbs and conquering Serbia but were i.e. well capable to throw them out of Syrmia, when Putnik tried his attack.
(Would be helpfull to stay a wee bit more with some the historical facts.)
What the ottomans and bulgarians did IOTL but might do lesser ITTL, due to the bigger attraction of a firmer military alliance for the latter.
What the russians AND the Entente IOTL actually tried ... only that especially the Serbs, to a lesser extent also the Romanians subbornly refused to do.
Much to the anger and ... desperation of the russians (Sazonov particularly).


However, as @Ultima Ratio and @FillyofDelphi have pointed to :
The build-up of romanian forces as well as the diplomatic activities and further intel about the "comming closer" of the romanians and the russians will most likely change deployments, preparations and objectives of the austrians considerably.

Nothing here supports your contentions. The Austrians are much weaker in Galicia and yet you still have the Russian armies there "screaming for help" Rather unlikely. With the B-Staffel removed from the campaign, then the Russians are scoring much better

The Austrians had pretty much written off the Romanians OTL so there won't be much change except diverting B-Staffel there. Its about all they could possibly spare. Romania's drift from the Triple Alliance was one of the big reasons driving the Austrians to war. It was just too much of a change for them. Since the Austrians couldn't handle the Serbo-Russians in OTL, there's no reason to think they are doing better with the Romanians against them as well

The Bulgarians are only joining if they think the pot of gold is big and the chances of losing small. Nothing here makes the Austrians more likely to win or for the Bulgarians to join
 
The Austrians had pretty much written off the Romanians OTL so there won't be much change except diverting B-Staffel there.
I think I remember some winter 1913 letters between the Habsburg chancellery and the German one saying something like "Yeah, I think we lost them. The greater public is for the Entente, and once old king Carol dies, his successor is far more pliable to the voices of pro-Entente politicians".
 
I think I remember some winter 1913 letters between the Habsburg chancellery and the German one saying something like "Yeah, I think we lost them. The greater public is for the Entente, and once old king Carol dies, his successor is far more pliable to the voices of pro-Entente politicians".

I think the Austro-Germans knew they never really had them. After all, King Carol signed the treaty and never told anyone about it. Makes it pretty clear that Carol thought he might lose his throne if his people found out. They were probably hoping that Carol could at least keep them neutral
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Depends on the diplomatic situation.
Well. yes, I agree : diplomatics and esp. their timing would play a big role. Something not discussed yet with several possibilities pro as well contra the deployment of russian 7th Army into Romania
Romania isn't just regarded as a powerful force, she really is one.
Somehow, I have the imprssion the romanian troops historical performance proved different.
Sure her equipment is weak in 1914 but from a relative POV, she's far stronger than in 1916.
Relative to what ?
The Austrians get pretty weak after their frontline divisions get mauled in August
What would not count for 2nd austrian army ... beside the "exhaustion" of getting on and off trains.
The lack of any logical reason for the Bulgarians to join the war because Romania does.
Aha, ...
but starting the 2nd Balkan-war was due to ... logical reasons for the bulgarians ?
It weakens the case for an Austro-German victory ...
as one of several arguements, I agree.
... and therefore the case for the Bulgarians to join the war.
while other arguements now favor it.
Seems to be a "case" of flipping a coin, what decision the bulgarians could make in such a situation.
Despite all these secret deals, both the Ottomans and the Bulgarians delay joining the conflict OTl
only, that conditions have changed ITTL, which would influence ITTL decisions.
Nothing here supports your contentions.
What "contentions" you speak of, that I - in your perception - try to support ?

At first, though not the first time, I only tried to correct factual wrong statements of you.
Only then I've named a possible developmenmt of the deployment of forces ITTL, with a possible change of action, due to change of circumstances, taking onto account IOTL behavios of austrian generals (in this case esp. Kövess), to stay within boundaries of plausibility.
Next I made a point in referring once again to historical happenings, that the serbs would not cause more troubles to the austrians ITTL as they did IOTL, mainly as there nothing actually changes.
Only to make next a point, that changes ITTL would/could change behavior and attitudes of the bulgarians and ottomans showed IOTL.

And finally I made a point, that the scenario we've discussed so far is overall rather implausible, as it doesn't take changes of initial deployments into account, probable due to changes before hostilities commence at all.


The Austrians are much weaker in Galicia and yet you still have the Russian armies there "screaming for help" Rather unlikely.
But , as you wish, lets keep on with this scenario.
As B-Staffel was IOTL redeployed from the serbian front to Eastern Galicia, that is the front at the Dnejstr-river, there is no incentive in this scenario, that anything has changed in Western Galicia, that is the frant at the San-river. Why ITTL should there be changes to what happened at Krasnik and Komarov ?
With the B-Staffel removed from the campaign, then the Russians are scoring much better
Agree with you - for what happens at the Dnjestr front, maybe also at the Lemberg front.
The Austrians had pretty much written off the Romanians OTL so there won't be much change except diverting B-Staffel there. Its about all they could possibly spare.
Fine with me. Have the 2nd Army in Transsylvania, Much more suitable to fight off the romanians than mere border guards at the mountain passes, which heavily support defenders.
Romania's drift from the Triple Alliance was one of the big reasons driving the Austrians to war. It was just too much of a change for them.
Huh ? Could you explain ? ... eventually a source ? ... how many "big reasons" were there ? ... what were the "small(er) reasons" ?
Since the Austrians couldn't handle the Serbo-Russians in OTL ...
Simply wrong. The austrians could not defeat the serbs in attacking Serbia, but - as I've pointed out earlier - were well able to throw the serbs back, when they attacked.
..., there's no reason to think they are doing better with the Romanians against them as well
What would be fine and just enough to achieve, showing, that the romanians are NOT as strong as most assumed they were, showing rather their weakness(ess) and pin-pointing them to be backstabbed by the bulgarians.
The Bulgarians are only joining if they think the pot of gold is big ...
as big as their historical "breadbasket" (Dobruscha) - for a first possible "pot" - they lost to the romanians.
...and the chances of losing small. Nothing here makes the Austrians more likely to win or for the Bulgarians to join
- possible military alliance with the ottomans
- romanians in the best position to be backstabbed (see above)
 
Top