REVIZIONISM ISTORIC MOLDOVENESC. CAZUL RĂZBOIULUI DE INDEPENDENȚĂ
MOLDAVIAN HISTORICAL REVISIONISM. THE CASE OF THE INDEPENDENCE WAR

Summary/Abstract: The paper refers to one of the most embarrassing legislative, governmental and even monarchic moments related to the rewards of the Independence War: the 1895 project for a retirement benefit for Grigore al Lucăi, a former sergeant of the 16th dorobanți Regiment (Botoșani), who claimed to have torn an Ottoman pennant during the conquest of the Grivița 1 redoubt (August 30, 1877). The motivation of the retirement benefit was to review the history of the war, given that the officially-recognised hero of the Ottoman flag capture was soldier Grigore Ion of the 2nd Hunters Battalion (Prahova). The official state version was not the only one that became amendable. Indirectly, they questioned the career and honour of General Alexandru Candiano-Popescu – the commander of the 2nd Hunters Battalion, adjutant of King Carol I –accused of having stolen the flag from the true hero for the benefit of his career. In the public’s eyes, Candiano risked becoming a classic example of the “glory theft” used as a practice in the army – an immoral means through which the highest in rank received the credit for the heroic deeds of their subordinates. In subsidiary, the entire matter highlighted two competitive histories and propagated two distinct commemorative traditions (Wallachian and Moldavian) claiming to be based on the same heroic deed. The case showed the contrary versions of two territorial armies: the 16th dorobanți Regiment (Botoșani) and the 2nd Hunters Battalion (Prahova). The evolution and context of the events show that this political incident of 1895 was not a particular act of “military jealousy,” but the ebullition of much deeper tensions derived from the Moldavian armed groups, overlapped by the atrocious rivalries between liberals and conservatives.

• Details
• Contents