Cultural Memory and Identity in Times of Conflict: Analysing the Bulgarian Campaign of 1913 Through Romanian Soldiers’ Memoirs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is unquestionably interesting and informative, creating a report on an event (the memoirs of the Bulgarian campaign of 1913) that was previously not a topic of interest in historical studies.
One of the issues with the paper is that its connection to memory studies, a now diverse interdisciplinary field, is in name only. It does not, for example, define the concept of cultural memory (used in the title) or that of collective identity. A further issue is that the paper does not provide an analysis, only a report based on the eyewitness accounts of the participants of the 1913 Bulgarian campaign (including writers, journalists, and soldiers of various ranks). An analysis would necessitate, beyond the mere recollection of events, the comparison of the eyewitness statements with that of the statements of historical studies, along the lines of selected viewpoints established by the author. This, however, is missing entirely. In its current form, the paper constitutes only a collection of literary and documentary illustrations of a historical event.
I would advise the considerable reworking of the paper, taking the most important works of memory studies into account (such as Aleida Assmann’s oeuvre with regards to memory and collective identity, and Astrid Erll’s regarding memory and literature).

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking you time to read and revise my paper. In the end, the editors decision was that the author should take into consideration making minor  revisions, but I consider that the analysis added to the paper, at least partially respond to the issues you’ve highlighted.

          For example, in response to your critique: ``One of the issues with the paper is that its connection to memory studies, a now diverse interdisciplinary field, is in name only. It does not, for example, define the concept of cultural memory (used in the title) or that of collective identity``, I have added the following text:

The memoirs of the 1913 Bulgarian Campaign, while largely unfamiliar to the Romanian public and relatively little known within cultural circles, can serve as a lens to examine the intersection of cultural memory and personal experiences of war. Considering the national narratives of the communist era that emphasised the peaceful nature of the Romanian people—disseminated through scholarly works as well as films and television—this gap in Romanian historiography contrasts with the broader European scholarship on war and memory. European scholarship has aimed to highlight the various ways of shaping collective identities through remembrance of conflict, with influential contributions from Maurice Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, and Jan Assmann.

This paper aims to examine who the Romanian soldiers were that participated in the Bulgarian Campaign of 1913, how they represented their experiences, and what contributions their narratives make to our understanding of the event. It explores how the memoirs portray the writers’ relationship with the cultural “other” and the emotions that influence their recollections. 

By examining soldiers’ memoirs as cultural texts rather than mere historical accounts, the study highlights that the formation of collective identity and cultural memory is profoundly shaped by the historical context and the environment in which they are created and shared. Memoirs are characterised by the author’s subjective reconstruction of the realities of the era in which they are written, influenced by the individual's specific identity—such as their language, values, traumas, or traditions. Consequently, the narrative often mirrors both personal experiences and significant historical events, and the line between reality and fiction frequently becomes blurred, as gaps in memory can be filled with imagination without undermining the text's documentary value. Ultimately, memoirs serve as a space for dialogue between history, identity, and literature, a domain where it is possible to explore how these elements intersect within the context of remembering war or conflict; thus, “memory is understood as being firmly grounded in its links to place and identity, but also to the role of power in representations of memory.” (Drozdzewski, Waterton, and Sumartojo 2019, p. 253).

 

          To answer to the second concern of you review: ``A further issue is that the paper does not provide an analysis, only a report based on the eyewitness accounts of the participants of the 1913 Bulgarian campaign (including writers, journalists, and soldiers of various ranks). An analysis would necessitate, beyond the mere recollection of events, the comparison of the eyewitness statements with that of the statements of historical studies, along the lines of selected viewpoints established by the author. This, however, is missing entirely. In its current form, the paper constitutes only a collection of literary and documentary illustrations of a historical event.``, I have reworked the Conclusions of the paper to read as follows:

 

          Analysing war memoirs related to a specific historical event is quite uncommon in Romanian historical research. The data presented in this paper demonstrate that the “strange war” fought by the Romanian army in Bulgaria in 1913 has been discussed in numerous works of varying scope. Each author referred to their own campaign experience, with different levels of hardship and events that affected or revolted them. Life for a soldier was much tougher than for an officer or “war chronicler” such as Nicolae Iorga. Therefore, there are differences in tone, level of drama, and severity of life experiences, depending on each author’s social and military status.

Although on a surface level, the memoirs seem to have a factual, matter-of-fact tone, full of descriptions and lacking ideological intent, a second glance reveals that these texts articulate a genuine national identity policy, transforming the experience of a minor military intervention into a form of Romanian self-definition. The recounts create the image of a civilized and humane Romanian, in contrast to the ‘’other’’ inhabitants of the Balkans that it encounters, described as violent, primitive, and driven by instinct.

When it comes to the cholera epidemic, we can observe that it served as an equalising force, a humanising moment between the Bulgarians and the Romanian armed forces. The shared experience of suffering seemed to generate compassion in the hearts of the conquering soldiers, who became carriers of an almost moral and civilising mission—liberators rather than conquerors. Romania itself appears to be a moderate power, ruled by reason rather than imperialist ambitions. Through this discourse, the memoirs participate in the symbolic legitimisation of Romanian territorial expansion in the region. Given the context of the conflict, in the absence of military heroism, these texts almost heroise morals and civility, presenting temperance, empathy, and order as defining moral virtues of national identity. Thus, behind the seemingly neutral accounts, a subtle rhetoric of moral and cultural superiority is concealed, used by writers of the time to contribute to the myth of a civilising, European, and just Romanian people in a chaotic and archaic space.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has good reasons to notice the relative scarcity of studies regarding the Balkan Wars (BW: 1912-13) in the Romanian historiography, given that most of the scientific focus shifted to the First World War, started only a few years later. Therefore, the approach – the representation of the BW in memoirs written by direct participants - is welcome. In order to assess correctly the value of a piece of memoir literature (ML) as a witness to historical events, it is necessary to underline its in-built partiality, subjectivity, one-sidedness, as shown in the Introduction of this study (p. 2). ML should be carefully situated in historical, political, and even biographical contexts, so that its representational complexity (and fallibility) becomes evident. Though the theoretical framework is duly acknowledged, the present paper should pay more attention to this multiple contextualization of the ML taken under scrutiny. Some of the memoirs are written right after the events (Iorga 1913, Lecca 1913, Maximin 1913, Dimiu 1914, Gheorghe 1915), some others are published later (Sadoveanu 1923 & 1925, Iorga 1932, Borgovan 1937). From the context of publication, the reader can deduce the political agendas behind some of them: Iorga 1913 was commissioned by the King of Romania, while both of Sadoveanu’s memoirs were published after the WW1. Most of the memoirs cited here are linked directly or indirectly to a politics of national identity, pre- and post-1918 (when the ”Greater Romania” was formed), drawing an idealized portrait of the Romanian character (civilized, humane, peaceful, even ”courteous”), in contrast with other Balkan peoples (cruel, uncivilized, etc.). I think the idea that there is a politics of identity, behind most of these apparently ”neutral”-factual accounts, should be made clear in the argument and in the Conclusions section (the ”sense of solidarity”, as well the whole last sentence, sound rather apologetic and unscientific).

Two other observations:

1. At p. 3, the quote from Barna 2016 seems weakly connected with the course of argument.
2. Topîrceanu (not Topârceanu!) should be cited from another source. His campaign diary (from 1913) was published in the review Luceafărul (July 1969) and offers more relevant data than those included in the introduction of Topîrceanu 2014.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking you time to read and revise my paper. After careful considerations, I have reworked the Introduction, the Conclusions and introduced new passages into the text, that answer to your concerns, as follows:

 

1. Topîrceanu (not Topârceanu!) - I have modified the name, but not the source for the citation, taking into consideration that the one published in 2014 is more easily available to the public than the one from 1969.
2. At p. 3, the quote from Barna 2016 seems weakly connected with the course of argument - I have eliminated the citation.
3. Most of the memoirs cited here are linked directly or indirectly to a politics of national identity, pre- and post-1918 (when the ”Greater Romania” was formed), drawing an idealized portrait of the Romanian character (civilized, humane, peaceful, even ”courteous”), in contrast with other Balkan peoples (cruel, uncivilized, etc.). I think the idea that there is a politics of identity, behind most of these apparently ”neutral”-factual accounts, should be made clear in the argument and in the Conclusions section (the ”sense of solidarity”, as well the whole last sentence, sound rather apologetic and unscientific) - The Conclusions have been completely revised and now read as follows:

Analysing war memoirs related to a specific historical event is quite uncommon in Romanian historical research. The data presented in this paper demonstrate that the “strange war” fought by the Romanian army in Bulgaria in 1913 has been discussed in numerous works of varying scope. Each author referred to their own campaign experience, with different levels of hardship and events that affected or revolted them. Life for a soldier was much tougher than for an officer or “war chronicler” such as Nicolae Iorga. Therefore, there are differences in tone, level of drama, and severity of life experiences, depending on each author’s social and military status.

Although on a surface level, the memoirs seem to have a factual, matter-of-fact tone, full of descriptions and lacking ideological intent, a second glance reveals that these texts articulate a genuine national identity policy, transforming the experience of a minor military intervention into a form of Romanian self-definition. The recounts create the image of a civilized and humane Romanian, in contrast to the ‘’other’’ inhabitants of the Balkans that it encounters, described as violent, primitive, and driven by instinct.

When it comes to the cholera epidemic, we can observe that it served as an equalising force, a humanising moment between the Bulgarians and the Romanian armed forces. The shared experience of suffering seemed to generate compassion in the hearts of the conquering soldiers, who became carriers of an almost moral and civilising mission—liberators rather than conquerors. Romania itself appears to be a moderate power, ruled by reason rather than imperialist ambitions. Through this discourse, the memoirs participate in the symbolic legitimisation of Romanian territorial expansion in the region. Given the context of the conflict, in the absence of military heroism, these texts almost heroise morals and civility, presenting temperance, empathy, and order as defining moral virtues of national identity. Thus, behind the seemingly neutral accounts, a subtle rhetoric of moral and cultural superiority is concealed, used by writers of the time to contribute to the myth of a civilising, European, and just Romanian people in a chaotic and archaic space.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would start with the title. It does not reflect the content of the article. Whose campaign in Bulgaria? It needs more clarity about who is doing what. In addition, it needs to make a clearer case for the contribution of the case study. As it stands now, the title says nothing.

Second, is the first section. The literature on memory and history is huge. The author does not really engage with it. He/she/they need/s to engage critically with it and point out what is the contribution of this paper, especially since it deals with war, disease, but also the breaking of the war's polarity friend vs. enemy. Here, the enemy is not dehumanized by the actors themselves, while when it comes to the discourses of the Romanian state during this time, Bulgarians quite often are dehumanized as the steppe's barbarians, while Romanians are the civilized Latin population. Contact on the ground and the memories of those who participated in the campaign debunk the power of state-sponsored narratives. For this reason, the article needs a better introduction. In addition, the intro is not well-organized. It starts with the Romanian campaign, jumps to memory studies, and returns to the campaign again. I would start with the theoretical debate, the contribution based on the type of resources used, and afterwards focus on the campaign--or the other way round. 

The next point is that the link between cholera and good relations with Bulgarians is not well made. How do these two points link to each other? Why has the author not focused just on one of them? If he/she/they want/s to build an argument on these two points, he/she/they need/s to argue they are linked. Otherwise, the article loses much of its strength. 

The most important point here is Iorga's memoir. He was a proponent of a Balkan/Southeast European identity and shared life experiences. In his memoir, he re-emphasizes it, thus showing how a historian builds alternative narratives from that of the state. 

The same goes for the conclusion. It is too short and does not wrap up the main argument. 

I have attached the article here with some notes I have left for the author/s, so they can make some improvements on specific issues. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some revision of language is necessary, but not a big deal.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking you time to read and revise my paper. After careful considerations, I have reworked the Introduction, the Conclusions and introduced new passages into the text, that answer to your concerns, as follows:

 

1. I would start with the title. It does not reflect the content of the article. Whose campaign in Bulgaria? It needs more clarity about who is doing what. In addition, it needs to make a clearer case for the contribution of the case study. As it stands now, the title says nothing - I have modified the title to better refflect the contents of the paper. The new title is: Cultural memory and identity in times of conflict: Analysing the Bulgarian Campaign of 1913 through Romanian soldiers’ memoirs.
2. [...]point out what is the contribution of this paper, especially since it deals with war, disease, but also the breaking of the war's polarity friend vs. enemy. Here, the enemy is not dehumanized by the actors themselves, while when it comes to the discourses of the Romanian state during this time, Bulgarians quite often are dehumanized as the steppe's barbarians, while Romanians are the civilized Latin population. Contact on the ground and the memories of those who participated in the campaign debunk the power of state-sponsored narratives. For this reason, the article needs a better introduction. In addition, the intro is not well-organized. It starts with the Romanian campaign, jumps to memory studies, and returns to the campaign again. I would start with the theoretical debate, the contribution based on the type of resources used, and afterwards focus on the campaign-or the other way round. - In response to your objections, I have rewriten the Introduction, as follows:

The Balkan Wars (1912-1913) marked a turning point in the modern history of Southeastern Europe, reshaping borders and alliances, and serving as a prelude to the global conflict later known as the First World War. The limited literature analysing Romania’s course of action in taking control of southern Dobruja after the Treaty of Bucharest, signed in August 1913, also references various moments of the military campaign in Bulgaria. Although it appeared to be merely a show of force, or nothing more than a “pleasure march” across the Danube followed by a triumphant return, the reality was far from this assumption. Through the military actions of July 1913, Romania expressed its ambition to become the “arbiter” of the Balkans. After the Peace of Bucharest, which marked a symbolic milestone in the development of national prestige and identity — especially considering Romania was a relatively new state at the time — this dream became a reality. Paradoxically, the victory, achieved almost without a shot being fired, was marred by the tragedy of soldiers decimated by cholera.

The memoirs of the 1913 Bulgarian Campaign, while largely unfamiliar to the Romanian public and relatively little known within cultural circles, can serve as a lens to examine the intersection of cultural memory and personal experiences of war. Considering the national narratives of the communist era that emphasised the peaceful nature of the Romanian people—disseminated through scholarly works as well as films and television—this gap in Romanian historiography contrasts with the broader European scholarship on war and memory. European scholarship has aimed to highlight the various ways of shaping collective identities through remembrance of conflict, with influential contributions from Maurice Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, and Jan Assmann.

This paper aims to examine who the Romanian soldiers were that participated in the Bulgarian Campaign of 1913, how they represented their experiences, and what contributions their narratives make to our understanding of the event. It explores how the memoirs portray the writers’ relationship with the cultural “other” and the emotions that influence their recollections. 

By examining soldiers’ memoirs as cultural texts rather than mere historical accounts, the study highlights that the formation of collective identity and cultural memory is profoundly shaped by the historical context and the environment in which they are created and shared. Memoirs are characterised by the author’s subjective reconstruction of the realities of the era in which they are written, influenced by the individual's specific identity—such as their language, values, traumas, or traditions. Consequently, the narrative often mirrors both personal experiences and significant historical events, and the line between reality and fiction frequently becomes blurred, as gaps in memory can be filled with imagination without undermining the text's documentary value. Ultimately, memoirs serve as a space for dialogue between history, identity, and literature, a domain where it is possible to explore how these elements intersect within the context of remembering war or conflict; thus, “memory is understood as being firmly grounded in its links to place and identity, but also to the role of power in representations of memory.” (Drozdzewski, Waterton, and Sumartojo 2019, p. 253).

Methodologically, the research employs discourse analysis and contextual interpretation, focusing on themes, metaphors, and narrative strategies.

The discussion unfolds in two principal sections. The first places the history of the Bulgarian Campaign within the political and cultural context of early twentieth-century Romania, analyzing how it was portrayed in official rhetoric. The second section focuses on the soldiers’ memoirs themselves, highlighting dominant themes such as the contrast between civilization and barbarism, the rhetoric of moral superiority, and the tension between pride and disillusionment.

3. `The next point is that the link between cholera and good relations with Bulgarians is not well made. How do these two points link to each other? Why has the author not focused just on one of them? If he/she/they want/s to build an argument on these two points, he/she/they need/s to argue they are linked. Otherwise, the article loses much of its strength.` correlated with `The same goes for the conclusion. It is too short and does not wrap up the main argument.`- The Conclusions have been completely revised and now read as follows:

Analysing war memoirs related to a specific historical event is quite uncommon in Romanian historical research. The data presented in this paper demonstrate that the “strange war” fought by the Romanian army in Bulgaria in 1913 has been discussed in numerous works of varying scope. Each author referred to their own campaign experience, with different levels of hardship and events that affected or revolted them. Life for a soldier was much tougher than for an officer or “war chronicler” such as Nicolae Iorga. Therefore, there are differences in tone, level of drama, and severity of life experiences, depending on each author’s social and military status.

Although on a surface level, the memoirs seem to have a factual, matter-of-fact tone, full of descriptions and lacking ideological intent, a second glance reveals that these texts articulate a genuine national identity policy, transforming the experience of a minor military intervention into a form of Romanian self-definition. The recounts create the image of a civilized and humane Romanian, in contrast to the ‘’other’’ inhabitants of the Balkans that it encounters, described as violent, primitive, and driven by instinct.

When it comes to the cholera epidemic, we can observe that it served as an equalising force, a humanising moment between the Bulgarians and the Romanian armed forces. The shared experience of suffering seemed to generate compassion in the hearts of the conquering soldiers, who became carriers of an almost moral and civilising mission—liberators rather than conquerors. Romania itself appears to be a moderate power, ruled by reason rather than imperialist ambitions. Through this discourse, the memoirs participate in the symbolic legitimisation of Romanian territorial expansion in the region. Given the context of the conflict, in the absence of military heroism, these texts almost heroise morals and civility, presenting temperance, empathy, and order as defining moral virtues of national identity. Thus, behind the seemingly neutral accounts, a subtle rhetoric of moral and cultural superiority is concealed, used by writers of the time to contribute to the myth of a civilising, European, and just Romanian people in a chaotic and archaic space.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is like a story - are missing the problematization, the research question, the hypothesis, what other answers the question that guided the research received in the specialized literature, etc. The solution (the actual answer to the question raised) and the arguments in favor of the answer are missing.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking you time to read and revise my paper. In the end, the editors decision was that the author should take into consideration making minor  revisions. After a careful analysis, I have reworked the Introduction, the Conclusions and introduced new passages into the text, in order to better the research, as you will find by reading the revised text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I approve of the revisions of the paper and I recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no suggestion