How Moldavia became “Romanian”

Travel reports from Moldavia and Wallachia in the 18th and 19th centuries
,
For many years travel reports from West and Central Europe described Moldavia and Wallachia as border regions between Europe and the Orient. This perception changed following the union of 1859 – Moldavia came to seem increasingly peripheral and “less Romanian”.

The “Edge of the Orient”

For travelers to West and Central Europe, the principalities of 
Principality of Moldavia
deu. Fürstentum Moldau, deu. Fürstentum Moldawien, chu. Zemlę Moldavskaę, chu. Землѧ Молдавскаѧ, ron. Principatul Moldovei

The Principality of Moldova was a historical state in south-eastern Europe whose foundation dates back to the 14th century. It existed until 1859. Today, its territory is divided between Moldova (excluding Transnistria) and the parts of northern Romania and southern Ukraine to the west of Moldova. For centuries, the Principality thus lay at the intersection of the spheres interests of neighboring great powers, initially Hungary and Poland, in the later centuries above all the Habsburg Monarchy in the northwest, the Russian Empire in the northeast, and the Ottoman Empire in the south, which exercised sovereignty over the Principality from 1512.

In 1859, the Principality of Moldavia was united with the Principality of Wallachia, initially through the personal union of Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuzas (1820-1873) and under the title of the “United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia”. In 1861, both were merged into the new “Principality of Romania”, from which the Kingdom of Romania would emerge twenty years later.

 and 
Principality of Wallachia
deu. Fürstentum Walachei

The Principality of Wallachia was a state in the south of present-day Romania. At the height of its expansion, it also included Dobruja and thus parts of the Black Sea coast. At the beginning of the 14th century, the principality was under Hungarian suzerainty. By the end of the century, it had fallen under Ottoman influence. As early as 1600, it was briefly united with the principalities of Transylvania and Moldavia. In 1659, the capital of the Principality of Wallachia was moved from Târgoviște to Bucharest. In 1859, the principality was once again united with the Principality of Moldavia, and together they formed the Principality of Romania in 1861.

 that make up much of present-day 
Romania
deu. Rumänien, ron. România

Romania (population in 2024: 19,043,151) is a country in Southeast Europe with an area of 238,397 km². The capital of the country is Bucharest. The state is situated directly on the Black Sea, the Carpathian Mountains and borders Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Ukraine and Moldova. Romania was established in 1859 from the merger of Moldova and Wallachia. Romania is home to Transylvania, the central region for the German minority there.

 were considered the border zone of Europe until well into the 19th century.1 They represented the transition between Christian rule and Ottoman supremacy – the “edge of the Orient,” where European lifestyles and supposedly Asiatic practices came into contact with one another.2 Despite their peripheral location, authors writing in German, French, Italian and Russian travelled throughout both these principalities and described their experiences at first hand.3 Many travel reports describe Moldavia and Wallachia as being intimately connected. They emphasize the common language, the orthodox religion and similar forms of governance. At the same time, stereotypical descriptions were commonplace: extreme climate, old-fashioned farming practices and dirty cities such as Iași and Bucharest. Authors would often write about both principalities even if they had only visited one of them, since the two countries were “so closely linked that the description of one country would, in most respects, also fit the other.”4

What made Moldavia Moldavian

Alongside the features shared by both Moldavia and Wallachia, travel reports also recorded clear differences. Moldavia was considered more mountainous and richer in forests, Iași as better constructed than the larger 
București
eng. Bucharest, deu. Bukarest, yid. buqarešṭ, yid. בוקארעשט

Bucharest (population in 2024: 1,709,458) is the capital of Romania. In 1659 Bucharest replaced Târgoviște as the capital of the Principality of Wallachia. After the unification of the Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia) under Ion Cuza in 1861, Bucharest became the capital of Romania in 1862. Within a short time, it had become by far the largest city in the Southeast European region between Budapest and Istanbul. Under King Carol I. (1866-1914) Bucharest underwent urban planning changes following Western trends, with palaces, boulevards, parks, Art Nouveau villas and electric lighting. Towards the end of the 19th century, the city also developed into an industrial and financial center. In 1916, during World War I, it was occupied by the Central Powers, with whom a peace treaty was signed in 1918. Between 1936 and 1940, a Parisian-style boulevard was built in Bucharest, which also earned the city the nicknames "Micul Paris" ("Little Paris") or "Paris of the East." In World War II, after a brief period of neutrality, Romania sided with the Germans after General Ion Antonescu and the fascist "Iron Guard" turned Romania into a "national-legionary state." When Antonescu was arrested by King Mihai 1944, this resulted in air raids by the Germans, which destroyed large parts of Bucharest. In 1977, an earthquake caused widespread damage. Beginning in 1984, communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu had parts of the historic old city demolished in order to build a large socialist center, but this was never completed after his execution and the fall of the communist regime in 1989. Bucharest is now the seventh largest city in the EU, of which Romania has been a member since 2007.

. Positive characteristics were ascribed to the Moldavians, such as physical strength, beauty and business skills, in particular with regard to animal husbandry and beekeeping.
One recurring motif is conspicuous: the ethnic diversity of Moldavia. While travelers in Wallachia mention primarily Roma and Greeks, in Moldavia they describe a juxtaposition of Jews, Hungarians, Germans, Armenians, Russians and other groups. A striking difference was also observed in the languages spoken. Contemporary witnesses considered Moldavian and Wallachian as related, but stressed significant differences in vocabulary and usage:

In the first days of my stay in Moldavia I thus found it remarkable that I would hear Wallachian spoken but would then be asked: Can you speak Moldavian?  - I would reply: I can speak Wallachian, but not Moldavian – People told me that they were one and the same language, but in the vocabulary alone there were many words that were quite different to the language I knew.

Wolf, Andreas: Beiträge zu einer statistisch-historischen Beschreibung des Fürstenthums Moldau, Hermannstadt 1805, pp. 177–178.
Not only the Moldavian language but the Moldavian identity was quite different to the Wallachian. While inhabitants of Wallachia described themselves as Romanians, people living in Moldavia called themselves Moldavian and insisted they were not “descended from the Romans”.5 This interpretation changed fundamentally following the union.

The union of 1859

Moldavia and Wallachia were unified in 1859, creating the modern state of Romania, which sought to achieve a centralized system. The two principalities became two regions in a larger political whole. 
Regional differences now became much less conspicuous in travel reports, and expressions such as “Moldavians” or “Wallachians” were considered by some authors as outdated or inappropriate:

The Romanian does not refer to himself as a Moldavian or a Wallachian but, with pride, as a ‘Rumin’, since he considers himself […] a descendant of the ancient Romans. […] In the same way […] he calls his country nothing other than […] ‘Romania’, since the principality is […] an inseparable whole and has no other names.

Henke, Rudolf: Rumänien. Land und Volk in geographischer, historischer, statistischer und ethnographischer Beziehung, sowie in Reiseerinnerungen nach dreijährigen eigenen Beobachtungen und mit Benutzung authentischer Quellen unter bevorzugter Berücksichtigung der gegenwärtigen Lage geschildert. Leipzig 1877, p. 6–7.
The new national, Romanian identity was emphasized. Romanians were portrayed as successors of the Romans, and Romania as an inseparable national territory. The former border between Moldavia and Wallachia along the River Milcov lost its significance. The name “Moldavia” remained in use but was increasingly used in a historical or geographical sense. Romanian historians later seldom questioned the fact that the two principalities belonged together, since for many the union was the first step towards autonomy from the 
Ottoman Empire
tur. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, deu. Osmanisches Reich, tur. Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye, eng. Turkish Empire, deu. Ottomanisches Reich, deu. Türkisches Reich

The Ottoman Empire was the state of the Ottoman dynasty from about 1299 to 1922. The name derives from the founder of the dynasty, Osman I. At its peak, the empire encompassed Asia Minor and parts of Arabia, Egypt, and the entire Balkans. In addition, it brought many other countries and territories in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and North Africa under its control. Its last capital was Constantinople (now Istanbul). The successor state of the Ottoman Empire is the Republic of Turkey.

 in 1877/1878.

The loser of the union, Moldavia

However, reports now increasingly stressed that “significant differences in national character and cultural relations” had developed “through the centuries long separation” between Moldavia and Wallachia. Moldavian features, as described in the travel reports, were also related to Moldavia’s change of image that followed the union.
 
“The separation of the country into Wallachia and Moldavia along the Lower Danube [that is, in the principalities] is no longer welcome these days”, a travelogue reports.6 Individual reports, however, indicate tensions between the two parts of the country after the union.

As far as the jubilation over the union of the two principalities is concerned, I would […] say that it is not quite genuine [,] [since] Moldavians always regard Wallachians with a sideways glance, with derision and jealousy […]. The two tribes fought too much in times past, there has been too much hatred and scorn between them, and the illusions of brotherhood that have arisen from time to time have been all too short-lived.

Derblich, Wolfgang: Land und Leute der Moldau und Walachei. Prag 1863, p. 312.
Separatist movements existed until the 1870s, especially in Moldavia. Since the population of Wallachia was larger, it played a more prominent role in the new nation. The infrastructure improved in both regions, and in 1870 the first rail connection between Bucharest and Iași was opened. However, investments were concentrated in Bucharest and Moldavia benefited significantly less. The travel writings of this period also portrayed the inhabitants of the Moldavian mountain area as particularly poor and described their activities and behavior as being reminiscent of “that of the redskins […] on the prairies of North America.”7 Moldavia’s heyday as a center of horse-breeding and beekeeping was already a thing of the past. If the Moldavian city of Galați, an important port and trading center in the 19th century, was formerly described as more important and beautiful than its Wallachian sister city, then this was no longer the case. While Brăila had acquired a “modern European character”, in Galați an “oriental style of architecture” still prevailed.8 

Romanians who are not so Romanian?

While Romanians overall were generally represented more positively and with greater sensitivity after the union, descriptions of Moldavia as a part of Romania deteriorated steadily. For example, the Wallachians were “more relaxed, stronger and more beautiful” than the Moldavians.9 They still wore traditional sheepskins, lace-up shoes and embroidered shirts, while the Moldavian women dressed however they wanted and as a result, Moldavia’s “beautiful national costume” was “about to die out”.10
This was explained on historical grounds: after all, Moldavia was only settled “by Romanian elements” a hundred years after Wallachia, and before that had experienced a period of foreign rule. For this reason, the history of Moldavia was shorter and less powerful. National traditions, which became very important in the 19th century, were thus less often attributed to Moldavia.

Diversity as a problem

A central theme of this re-evaluation was ethnic diversity. What had been celebrated as the special features of this polyglot region were now interpreted in increasingly negative terms. The growing Jewish population became a particular focal point. Travel reports described rural areas as predominantly Moldavian while cities and markets were said to have a strong Jewish character. Earlier travel descriptions traced differences in appearance between Wallachians and Moldavians back to different types of people, but now the prevailing notion was that there were no Moldavians, only Romanians. Differences between the population in Wallachia and Moldavia were attributed by travelers to foreign and, in particular, to the Jewish parts of the population.
This observation was increasingly connected with overt antisemitism. After Iași lost its capital city status, the Jewish population became increasingly prominent in travelers’ descriptions. While Nature had been “far kinder” to Iași than to Bucharest, the former Moldavian capital was the “uncontested home of countless vampires”.11 In Wallachia, the Jewish population had “nothing but scattered outposts.” The Jewish presence was portrayed as the cause of economic and social problems. Those in Wallachia were not Ashkenazi but Sephardic Jews, who were considered more assimilated. By contrast, “foreign” Jewish populations were principally associated with Moldavia. While Wallachia seemed more ethnically homogeneous, Moldavia became synonymous with otherness, poverty and loss of identity, and was often reduced to these stereotypes. Even today, Moldavia is frequently labelled the most backward region of Romania.
Only very few people outside Romania know that until the mid-19th century, the Romanian region of Moldavia was an independent principality. When people think of Moldavia, most will only think of the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Even if Moldavians considered themselves different to the Wallachians or disadvantaged following the union, it was not long before little of this remained in the outward perception created by travelers.

Conclusion

Travel reports about Moldavia and Wallachian combined personal impressions with contemporary geographical, ethnographic and historical knowledge and had a strong influence on West and Central European perceptions of the region. They show very clearly the extent to which these perceptions of space, population and identity were dependent on political context. Prior to the union, differences between the two principalities were considered self-evident. After 1859 they were concealed in the interests of a national narrative, without completely disappearing. The political ambitions of each era were projected onto Moldavia: initially, prior to the union, it was a diverse border region, later on, it became an ostensibly underdeveloped periphery of the new state. The attribution “Romanian” was not a natural state of affairs, but rather the result of political decisions and cultural interpretations, which changed over time. A comparison of travel reports that emerged at different times makes this transformation visible – and reminds us that national identity is something that is always narrated and negotiated.
English translation: Gwen Clayton

Info section