All posts by meanderer007

A Slaughterhouse of Souls in Romania

2025 Cruise up the Danube River

 

From Wikipedia

A little more about kids under communism.

 

The worst conditions for the orphans of Romania were found in those institutions designed for disabled children. In one institution, a psychiatric hospital, it lacked basic medicines and washing facilities, increasing again the pain and suffering. At the same time, in many institutions physical and sexual abuse was rampant, compounding problems for the hapless children. In some institutions for disabled children, they were often tied to their own beds, or dangerously restrained in their own clothing.

 

Shockingly, because sometimes staff in the institutions failed to put clothes on the children, they were left all day sitting in their own feces and urine. The nurses were not properly trained and even frequently abused them.  They used dirty water to bathe the children and sometimes threw 3 children into a bath at one time to save time and water. Just as happened in Canadian Indian Residential Schools, because of abuses of children by staff, older children learned that they should be abusing the younger children as well. As it did in Canada, this might bring intergenerational trauma. Naturally, many of the children had delayed cognitive development as a result of the conditions in which they lived. Many did not even learn how to bathe or feed themselves.

 

Staff at times used inappropriate drugs to control behaviour. Since many of the children did not have even their most basic needs met in the institutions, many children died of minor illness or injuries that healthy children could have coped with easily. Many actually starved to death. The development of many children was impaired by the condition of the children. For example, sometimes fractures did not heal properly resulting in seriously deformed limbs.

 

Because of the common practice of using unsterilized instruments in the institutions, some of the institutions became infected with HIV/AIDS As a result of the orphanages being infected with HIV/ because of all of this, more than 17,000 Romania teenagers died.  And you can guess what happened to the rest?

 

Some children suffered from multiple transfers to other institutions often without warnings or explanations. The harshest treatments were reserved for children who were considered “irrecuperable” or “unproductive.” Former staff reported that corporal punished was encouraged by officials as appropriate punishment and those who were loath to impose such were considered weak.

 

Unfortunately, the true number of children who lived or died in orphanages during the communist era is not known with clarity, but according to one report in 2015, “Half a million kids survived Romania’s ‘slaughterhouse of souls.”.

In. summary, the best comparison would be to the horrors of the treatment of Canadian children in Canada’s Residential School system for indigenous children.

 

After the fall of communism in 1989 pictures were released around the world that showed images of emaciated children clothed in rags, looking into the cameras with desperate eyes amid the squalor of Romania’s orphanages. It wasnot a pleasant sight.

 

Shaun Walker for The Guardian reported 30 years later that Florian Soare, an investigator as part of investigations that followed estimated that “between 1966 and 1989 there were between 15,000 and 20,000 unnecessary deaths of children in Romania’s grim network of children’s homes, with the vast majority taking place in those set aside for disabled children.”

 

Across the country, there were 26 institutions catering to the “category three” disabled children (“incurable”). Walker reported how the investigators found shocking mortality levels among the children.  Soare said, “They didn’t die from the disabilities they had: 70% of the registered deaths were for pneumonia. They were dying of external causes that were preventable and treatable,” said Soare. In other words, there was negligence or malfeasance or both.

 

Walker also remarked that,

 

“The process of bringing the crimes of the communist period to light is moving slowly. The repression is skimmed over in school classes, said Ana Blandiana, a poet who has transformed a former communist-era prison in the town of Sighet, on Romania’s border with Ukraine, into the country’s only museum of communist crimes.”

 

Many people in Romania don’t like it when such history is brought up because they feel it is a stain on their reputation.

 

When the investigators dug deeper they found some horrifying secrets.  Some children testified that some children died of frostbite, or were literally chewed to death by rats. Some were kept in cages smeared with their own feces.  Soare actually believes it was part of a campaign of extermination. No wonder Romanians don’t want those stories out there. Frankly, I can’t believe that. I have heard of no evidence that showed deliberate systematic murder. Some cases of deliberate murder, but a campaign?

 

Izidor Ruckel who spent 11 years at one of the facilities for supposedly “incurable” children because he had contracted polio, said there were “a number of genuine sadists  on the staff of his institution” and recalled that “you could feel her in her veins that she loved abusing children.”[1] He himself had been subjected to gruesome beatings and other forms of abuse yet amazingly concluded “it was for God alone to judge.”

 

 

After the fall of the communist regime, and people learned what happened in those institutions, international adoption was seen as the answer to the problem of what to do with the orphans. Get rid of the children and at the same time have westerners pay for them. As a result, large numbers of children were adopted by foreigners in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, there were many irregularities encouraged by loose government regulations. In 2004 the government banned international adoptions except to grandparents. The EU supported a ban so that abuses could be curtailed.

 

 

Improving the situation of orphans was made a condition of Romanian entry into the European Union but a BBC investigation in 2009 showed that many problems remained.

 

All in all, it was a terrible mess. Similar things happened in Bulgaria.

 

As a result, a shocking number of children were abandoned and cared for by largely well-meaning, but overwhelmed government employees. The children often did not experience the loving care and attention of a mother or father. This led to children with severe mental health problems that plagued the country and even the families in the west that adopted these children. It was a catastrophe.

 

But thank goodness there is some better news. In September 2005, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for Romania made this very hopeful statement: “Romania has profoundly reformed [from top to bottom] its child protection system and has evolved from one of the worst systems in Europe to one of the best.”

 

The history is miserable; the future is better.

[1] Shaun Walker, Thirty years on, will the guilty pay for horror of Ceaușescu orphanages?” The Guardian Dec. 15, 2019

Communist Kids

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Fellow Feeing, Health, Loneliness

 

If anyone has been following my posts about Romania, they know I love the country and the people of Romania.  There is however one serious black spot on that record. It goes back to the closing days of the Communist regime led by Nicolae Ceaușescu.

 

The one more aspect of the Ceaușescu regime I want to talk about is its attitude to children. This may seem surprising. It was surprising to me.

 

First of all, we must remember that under Communist dictatorship the economy in the late 1980s had sunk badly. Things were so bad that many good people could not feed and clothe their families anymore. Many of them believed they had no choice but to give up their children to the state. Imagine how desperate they were to do that!

 

President Nicolae Ceaușescu’s attempts to implement family policies led to a significant growth of the population and as a result the ailing economy could not keep up and instead the country saw a growing number of illegal abortions and increasing numbers of orphans in state institutions. Frankly, I don’t understand entirely how this could happen, but it was the result of an economic mess.

 

Ceaușescu, like so many conservative political leaders including Donald Trump and his mentor Viktor Orban of Hungary, are Natalists. Ceaușescu for example wanted each Romanian woman to rear at least 5 children. They supported efforts to increase the local population, rather than admitting immigrants.  They wanted more of “us” and less of “them.” Donald Trump really is doing the same thing. In the US, “us’ of course means the white nation who must be protected from the assaults of the immigrants and other strangers. Even though Trump says the country is full and there is no room for more immigrants, he wants the population to grow. Just not with immigrants.

 

The Ceaușescu government increased restrictions on abortion. Added to that, the communist regime was also opposed to family planning. As a result, the population increased dramatically, but could not handle the increase, partly because of their sick economy.

 

In Romania Ceaușescu’s policies led to disaster. These policies together with decaying economics led to a strong uptick in abortions. In Romania, many people felt they could not support families anymore so they gave them up to orphanages to a shocking extent. And orphanages are the not the best place for children to be raised.

 

Money became even scarcer for these institutions when the Ceaușescu regime decided it needed to divert funds to pay for its foreign debt and expenses for the massive People’s Palace that had to be paid. Because of the economic reversal, electricity and heating was reduced as well. Food was often scarce and there were just not enough staff to give the children the loving care they needed.

 

The absence of personal loving care and attention was the major problem in the orphanages. Because of the neglect of the children, many of the children grew up with physical and mental development delays. Some of those children were given false diagnoses from untrained physicians and nurses. Jon Hamilton, a journalist with National Public Radio in the US said this,

 

“A lot of what scientists know about parental bonding and the brain comes from studies of children who spent time in Romanian orphanages during the 1980s and 1990s.”

 

Those studies were made with extreme subjects. The neglect of children there and their subsequent suffering led to many of them growing up with severe mental and physical health challenges. The conditions of the Romanian orphanages showed that not only is nutrition vital to a child’s development, so is “basic human contact.” This is what I call fellow-feeling.

 

Because of the absence of basic human contact, many babies in Romanian Orphanages developed without stimulation which led to self-stimulation such as hand flapping or rocking back and forth. These conditions also led to frequent misdiagnoses of mental disabilities that forced children to go to inappropriate institutions for inappropriate treatments. Many of those children were given the wrong medications or were tied to their beds to prevent self-harm.

 

As many North American adoptive parents learned, after those Romanian children were adopted, the children still had serious problems in forming attachments to their new parents. Some of the them could not discriminate their new mothers from complete strangers. Scientists also learned that many of the children in orphanages grew up with smaller brains than average children.

 

 

I think it is generally acknowledged that the most important aspect of ideal care for infants is for the child to develop a healthy relationship with at least one caregiver. That is essential for the child’s successful social and emotional development. It is particularly important to help the child to learn to regulate his or her emotions and feelings. According to NPR, “In the Romanian orphanages, children had grown accustomed to neglect in early infancy.” These were lonely beginnings so many of the young children of Romania, particularly in orphanages were not nurtured with love and care. Of course, when people from North America and other places came to adopt these children, many of those children had trouble forming good solid emotional relationship with their loving adoptive parents there. Many did not get a good start in America and Canada either. They brought the pain here.

 

This led to absolute disaster. I will talk about that in my next post. It is a gruesome story.

Romania: From World War II to Communism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Authoritarianism

 

This building has been called Ceaușescu’s office. Nicolae Ceaușescu was the Communist leader of Romania for many years.

 

Romania started out in 1941 as an ally of Nazi Germany when it declared war on the Soviet Union. They did not care so much about England or the United States, or lord knows, Canada.  Russia was their traditional enemy and their King was a member of a great German family. As a result, taking sides with Germany against Russia made a lot of sense to Romanians.

 

However, things change, particularly in European international politics. After the defeat of Germany at Stalingrad, Romanian leaders felt the winds of change. In Romania, on August 23 1944, with the Soviet Red Army on the march, Romania’s King Mihai forcibly removed Romania’s Marshal Ion Antonescu from power when he refused to sign an armistice with the Allies of World II. As a result, Romania brazenly switched sides.

 

Of course, you might wonder what good did it do Romania to switch sides, for Russia, its erstwhile new ally, invaded and took over Romania as soon as the war was over. Romania became part of the Soviet empire.  And, Vio, our faithful Romania guide and interpreter on this trip mocked how the Russians since then painted the Romanians as eternal friends of Russia, which, of course was total nonsense. But nothing prevails more relentlessly in international affairs than nonsense.

 

Less than 3 years after Russia’s takeover of Romania, its monarch, King Mihai was forced to abdicate and vacate the castle. The People’s Republic of Romania—a state of “popular democracy“—was proclaimed.  It of course was no democracy at all. It was a communist dictatorship. The newly established communist regime, was led by the Romanian Workers’ Party which quickly consolidated its power through a Stalinist-type policy aimed at suppressing any political opposition and transforming the economic and social structures of the old bourgeois regime into a typical communist regime that bore little resemblance to Marx’s dreams of a workers’ communist paradise.

 

In 1965 the communist leader of Romania died and after a brief struggle Nicolae Ceaușescu emerged as the head of government.  Like so many autocrats, Hitler, Orban, and others included, Ceaușescu turned into an autocrat after enjoying the power which he later did not want to give up.  As we have seen recently with Donald Trump in the United States and Bolsonaro in Brazil, it is difficult for some democratically elected leaders to give up their power. It is intoxicating and addictive.

 

In the early 1960s, the Romanian government began to assert some small degree of independence from Soviet Russian domination. I don’t mean to minimize this. It took courage to resist the Soviet Communist foreign policies. Romania did not abandon its repressive internal policies which it of course called “revolutionary conquests” much like Donald Trump calls his slide into autocracy “greater freedom.” Such camouflaging maneuvers are common with every autocratic regime.

 

Upon achieving power, Ceaușescu eased restrictions on the press and actually condemned the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 that effectively quelled the Prague Spring and his popularity rose spectacularly.  That popularity however was very brief.

 

Soon the communist regime of Romania became totalitarian and was even considered for a while the most repressive in the Eastern bloc. His secret police, the Securitate, was responsible for mass surveillance and severe repression with human rights abuses being prominently featured in the activities of the regime. He controlled the press absolutely.  It is things like this in history that should give all of us pause when we see attempts to control the press as Donald Trump has done flamboyantly in the US without much opposition. These are not innocent maneuvers. They are at the heart of a dangerous path to autocracy and all of us who cherish freedom must be alert to them and oppose them with firmness and vigor. I am constantly amazed at how cavalier Americans have been about such encroachments onto fundamental rights and freedoms. Such actions by Trump, acquiesced to by his Republican cronies, are dangerous.

 

For a while Ceaușescu was very popular for his efforts to remain independent of Russian foreign policy. But like all good autocrats from Hitler to Trump he grew increasingly authoritarian. That is what authoritarians do. His insistence on his monstrous People’s Palace shown in this photograph is just one example. He foisted it on the people whether they wanted it or not, because he wanted it. Like so many authoritarians, he also liked the grandiose, and insisted on building this People’s Palace, the second largest administrative building in the world after the Pentagon in Washington even though Romania could really not afford it and no one wanted it.

 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the Communist regime of Romania collapsed with startling rapidity. He thought his people loved him. He was wrong. Ceaușescu and his wife Elena were the victims of a series of anti-communist uprisings in Eastern Europe in that inspiring year. After a very quick trial they were found guilty and both shot.

 

This was not really a good start for what the new regime called “original democracy.”

Romania Breaks out from Communism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Free Speech, Freedom

 

This is a photo of 5 Canadian tourists in Romania who I think all came to love that country.

I have loved our visit in Romania much more than I could ever have imagined. As I said before, I never had desire to visit Romania, but here I was and now I know better. The people were great. The country was beautiful. The history was fascinating. The food was excellent. But it has had some wicked problems.

 

Our guide, Vio told us something that surprised us. He asked us who we thought was the greatest man or woman of the twentieth century.  Then he told us who he thought was the greatest man of the twentieth century.  I paused wondering who he would say.  Before I could come up with an answer he said, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. That seemed like a remarkable choice, but Vio had a good explanation.

 

Gorbachev was the last leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 to its dissolution in 1991. Ideologically, he at first adhered to Marxist-Leninism, the official doctrine of the Soviet Union, but he gradually moved towards social democracy by the early 1990s. He, not Ronald Reagan, as so many Americans believe, was the driving force behind moving The Soviet Union and its satellites, such as Romania, away from Communism and ending the Cold War too.

 

To Vio however, the reason he admired him so much, and was the greatest man of the twentieth century, was because as a result of him, Vio believed, he was able to speak his mind freely in Romania. Because of Gorbachev, he was free to answer the question I had posed for example about whether Romania was a genuine democracy.  Before the time of Gorbachev, it would have been very dangerous of me to ask such a question, and much more dangerous for him to answer it truthfully, since he lived in Romania, which was part of the Soviet empire. Vio called him “a gentle dictator.” That is what social democracy is too—gentle socialism.

 

As we were driving down National Highway No. 1 of Romania, which Vio said was the only national highway, he warned us that at times under Original Democracy it would become, the “National Parking Stall.”  Of course, we in the west are very familiar with this concept too. Often freeways become the “no free way.”

 

Romania is now part of the European Union which means that it must meet some minimal standards of democracy. Like Hungary which is also a member of the EU, Romania has its own currency.  Their own people acknowledge it is not much of a currency.  They openly call it “funny money”. No other country accepts it, but people who travel through it, like people who work on this boat we were travelling,  will accept Romanian money since they can us it when they sail through it. But few others accept it. According to Vio, this is a product of Original Democracy. Cock-eyed in other words.

 

Since Romania joined the EU, its people must be free to live and work elsewhere. Many of them have taken advantage of that privilege. It used to have 22 million people, now about 5 million of those people now live abroad. They prefer real democracy, or perhaps just better economic benefits than that offered by Original Democracy. Original democracy did not sound very appealing.

 

But now people can speak their minds. And that is worth a lot.

 

Bran Castle: am I a closet aristocrat lover?

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, castle

 

In the evening we went on another excursion, this time to the world-famous Bran castle of Romania.

 

This was our third castle in 2 days and I loved each one in its own way.  Am I a closet aristocrat lover? My ‘man of the people’ street creds were by then in absolute shambles. How can I possibly be so interested in the aristocracy?  The last time in my blog and asked if I was a hypocrite one of my closest friends automatically replied, ‘of course you are!” So I won’t ask it again.

 

We had all been warned yesterday by Chris the cruise director to consider carefully whether or not we should go into the castle. He made the dangers perfectly clear. Ominously clear. A number of people in our group had suffered serious falls that led to injuries. I had seen some of the walking wounded. Chris said some of the stairs in the castle were without railings.

Fortunately, we got a good view of Bran Castle from the bottom, looking up. We could still see it and photograph it.

Bran Castle (Castelul Bran) was hyped as the legendary Dracula’s castle and some of our friends were excited about that and then were later disappointed when there was no truth to the myth.  Actually, Dracula’s castle was an entirely fictional castle, which many tend to forget.  It was not mentioned in the book and there is no evidence the author ever set inside it.  In the book the castle does not even bear any resemblance to the real castle. Really, tourists were sold fantasy or nonsense.  And they were gullible. The real story is actually much more interesting than the fantasy.

 

That of course does not detract from the fact that it has been marketed as Dracula’s castle. The claims that it was owned by Dracula are based on a desire to extract dollars from gullible tourists.

Bran castle is named after the town in which it is located. It was built in 1377 by the Saxons who emigrated here from Germany. King Louis I of Hungary allowed the construction and now it is a world-famous monument and landmark in Transylvania..

Some members of our group went to take a look at the interior, but Christiane and I joined friends on the bottom of the hill for a jovial get together.

The original castle built on the site was made of wood and was destroyed by Mongols in 1242. It was built as a fortified structure at the entrance to the mountain pass where traders passed through for more than a century. It was built mainly for fortification against attacks by the Turks, but it was also used to collect tolls or tariffs. Trump was not the first monarch to collect those. The castle was of course fought over from time to time by lords in the area. The castle played a militarily strategic role right up to the middle of the 18th century. It became a home for royals after the treaty was signed ending the First World War, because the Saxons who owned it no longer had a military use for it and did not wish to pay the costs of upkeep anymore. The castle was old and always in need of repairs like most old homes. Even castle suffer the vagaries of time.

It was for a time the favourite retreat of Marie of Romania who paid for extensive renovations. It was inherited by her daughter Ileana who ran a hospital there in World War II. After that war it was seized by the communists who expelled the royal family in 1948. In 2005, after the Communists were out of power, it was given to the Archduke Dominic, a son of Princess Ileana. Ownership was challenged from time to time, but eventually settled that it was owned by the Hapsburg family. In June of 2009 the Hapsburg family (who are still around) opened the refurbished castle to the public as the first private museum in the country and made an agreement with the village of Bran to maintain it as a tourist facility.

 

The Black Church: The final resting place of the Stinking Rich

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Churches

One of the most important structures that we saw on our walk through the city of Brasov was the so-called Black Church (Biserica Neagra) of Brasov. It has been cleaned up and is no longer so very black. It is the most important church of the Saxon community in Romania. It is a Lutheran church that was built by local Transylvanian Saxons. Our guide Vio said the church got its name as a result of a 1689 fire which deposited soot in and around the church and gave it its dark appearance. Some modern interpreters have said the color was actually the product of pollution. And pollution as we all know is ubiquitous, so that is a reasonable interpretation. The church is a working church and is considered the main city landmark of Brasov.

 

The church was built during the 14th century, before the Reformation. Most scholars believe it was built starting in 1383 and was probably completed by about 1476. Like so many great churches of Europe, it was built on the site of an earlier church (destroyed during Mongol invasions in 1242).  Christians are by no means the only religious group that destroyed the churches or places of worship of its rivals. Such destruction was common among most if not all religions, except those who lacked the power to do so.

 

The interior of the church was very beautiful.  It has lovely balconies and stained-glass windows in addition to the huge organ.

The 1689 fire occurred when it was invaded by Hapsburg forces during the Great Turkish war but that theory is now widely refuted. The church was substantially restored in 1937 and again in 2000.

The church contains an impressive organ and Transylvanian rugs as well as 3 bells the largest of which weighs 6.3 tonnes making it the biggest in Romania. It is also the largest Gothic church between Vienna and Istanbul. The large organ has 4,000 pipes and was built in 1839 and is played during weekly concerts.

The church also has gorgeous Turkish carpets, including 119 Anatolian carpets,  that were donated between the 15th and 17th centuries by wealthy Transylvania merchants who were grateful they had survived their journeys into “barbaric” lands to the south and east of the Carpathian mountains. And of course, they probably believed the sums would help purchase a pleasant and cool permanent home for their souls rather than one that is much too hot. We were told the collection of carpets is the largest of its kind in Europe. In recent years, the church windows were outfitted with special UV-filtering glass to protect them.

Part of the Mausoleum for the filthy rich

For many years people wanted to be buried inside the church because they felt they would be closest to God there and thus might not be so easily forgotten by God. The richer the person the closer he was allowed to be buried to the Eucharist. Like the rich around the world, from Steinbach to Brasov, the rich here were not averse to trying to buy their way into heaven. Sadly, though despite the donations to the church, some of the corpses of the wealthy decomposed and stank to high heaven. Vio said these were early examples of “the stinking rich”. And it was their fitting final resting place. At least so they thought. Some think they found that final resting place in much hotter environs.

 

The Beautiful City of Brasov

2025 Cruise up the Danube River

 

 

I never heard of Brasov before signing up for this trip to the Balkans. I never had any dreams of coming here, but I was very pleasantly surprised by the beauty of this place and how historically interesting it is.

In the afternoon we participated in a guided tour of Brasov led by Vio who is local guide, as this was his home town, though he no longer lives there.  We basically walked around the old city centre of Brasov and our guide interpreted what we saw.  There is no doubt in my mind that a good interpreter is worth his or her weight in gold. Unless you have a vast amount of historical knowledge it is difficult to understand what you are seeing in an old city centre. Get a guide if you can!

Brașov is a city in the Transylvania region of Romania, ringed by the Carpathian Mountains. It’s known for its medieval Saxon walls and bastions, the towering Gothic-style Black Church and lively cafes. Piaţa Sfatului (Council Square) in the cobbled old town is surrounded by colorful baroque buildings and is home to the Casa Sfatului, a former town hall turned local history museum. Of course, I loved to photograph those old buildings.

Located at the heart of old medieval Brasov and lined with beautiful red-roofed merchant houses, the Council Square, known to the Saxon population as the Marktplatz, is a nice place to rest and watch the locals and visitors. That is exactly what Christiane did here.

 

The central square is surely one of the most picturesque squares in Europe. It has been claimed that it is the spot where the legendary Pied Piper led the children of Hamlin. It is a great place to rest, and Christiane did exactly that while the rest of us clamoured along the cobblestones which she failed to admire.

Brasov is surrounded by the peaks of the Southern Carpathian Mountains, that can be seen on some of my photos. Brasov is an incredibly beautiful city that I thought matches or surpasses the beauty of most European cities. The walk through the old part of the town was stunning.

Brasov was founded, in 1211, by the Teutonic Knights, on an ancient Dacian site. In the 13th century Brasov was settled by the Saxons after it got permission from the man Vio claimed owned all of Europe, Sigismund of Luxembourg.  It soon became one of Transylvania’s famous seven walled cities (Siebenburgen or seven walled citadels). Strong defending towers were erected and maintained with funding provided by the town’s craft guilds.

 

Thanks to its location at the intersection of trade routes linking the Ottoman Empire and western Europe, and a friendly tax regime because Sigismund did not levy taxes, though the Turks often tried to do that, the merchants of the city amassed considerable wealth.  Naturally, that wealth allowed them to obtain significant political influence in the region.   That was why the name of the city in German at the time was Kronstadt or Corona in Latin, meaning the Crown City.

 

 

This city has a lot of churches and frankly I don’t remember some of them by name. It’s hard to lug camera gear, take photos and make notes too.

 

Some of the churches are too large for their space so that you can’t walk away from them for better and more complete photos. I had to do the best I could from up close.  That is a pity. I think every church should be surrounded by open space so it can be appreciated properly from a distance where you can get an overview.

 

The Transylvanian Saxons built massive stone walls and seven bastions around the city (still visible today), as well as ornate churches, elaborately decorated buildings and one of the most picturesque central squares in Transylvania.

Many people like Mount Tâmpa with its Kitschy Hollywood like sign. Personally, I consider such structures, whether here or Phoenix, a desecration and would prefer an uncluttered mountain. But each to their own. Apparently, the sign can be seen for over 15 miles.

We also stopped to admire Catherine’s Gate (Poarta Ecaterninei)  which was built in 1559.  Please note the 4 turrets on the building.  This tells us that this building housed a judge who had the right to impose capital punishment. It symbolizes the fact that Brasov was independent city with judicial autonomy.  What we saw here, looks like a fairy-tale tower, but originally it was actually part of a much larger structure. That larger structure was demolished in 1827. Above the entrance, can be seen the city’s coat of arms, a crown on a tree trunk.

 

We also walked by what some call the narrowest road in Europe. I think such claims are dubious and meant to lure tourists to their doom. But I remember one very narrow street from our earlier trip to the Balkans and specifically remember I could barely walk through it. It was that tight. It was definitely narrower than this street, though this was impressively narrow. The street is called Rope Street and is 3.6 to 4 feet wide and 265 feet long. Clearly, big American cars are not welcome here. Another legend, equally unbelievable, was that couples who kissed on Rope Street will never part. Christiane refused to kiss me here, as such a prospect was too daunting for her. OK I never tried, but I am sure that would have been her response. Apparently, this myth though gave comfort to young couples whose parents disapproved of their relationship.

Fortified Church

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Churches

 

Prejmer fortified church

Have you ever heard of fortified churches?  I don’t recall that I had, but we visited one on the edge of Brasov where we had stayed for the night.  A short bus ride in the morning brough us to a fortified church Biserica fortificată Premjer, Romania. I had never heard of a fortified church before. Many are found in the Balkans, particularly Romania. They were built in the Balkans, and probably many other places, to protect the Christians from the Turks who saw fit to exact taxes from them or face the rough consequences of attacks. The Turks like the Christians could be brutal.

 

Sigismund of Luxembourg, who according to Vio our guide, “owned all of Europe” in the 14 hundreds, and was the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Hungary who wanted protection from the Turks, allowed Saxons from Germany to live in this region without paying any taxes. All they had to do, was protect him from the Turks. It was a pretty good deal. They had good land and lots of clean water. But there was a catch—the Turks. And the Turks were violent, abusive, and nasty.

 

The Prejmer fortified church is a Lutheran Church located in Brasov County in the Transylvania region of Romania that was fortified to give the parishioners protection from frequent raids by Turks who extorted payment of taxes from them. If they did not pay the protection racket charges the Turks would attack. The church was founded by Germanic Teutonic Knights that was later taken over by the Transylvania Saxon community. It was originally a Roman Catholic church that became Lutheran after the Protestant Reformation. The church is now part of the villages with fortified churches in Transylvania, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Around 1211, King Andrew II of Hungary permitted the knights to settle in his territory around Prejmer where they built this church in 1218. The church was built with a Greek cross plan, the only one of its kind in Transylvania. A similar design is found in a few German churches in the northeast part of Germany.

The triptych altarpiece shown in my photograph dates to around 1450. The scene is from the Passion of Christ. It is the most ancient triptych in Romania.

A bell tower was added above the center of the church in 1461. The Greek cross shape was modified between 1512 and 1515 when 2 side naves were added while the main one was extended. The interior of the church is very simple and shows no signs of frescoes. There were some 19th century paintings in the church which were removed during restoration.

When Ottoman forces (Turks) or other invaders broke through the Buzâu Pass nearby  the first place they encountered when they were looking for tribute was Prejmer. The Turks basically came every year. The Christians had to pay every year and they didn’t like it. In addition to plunder, the Turks often seized women, children, and even men as slaves. As a result, the parishioners built the fortification around the church to give them some means of defending themselves rather than paying annual tribute. As soon as the warnings went out that Turks were on the way people gathered inside the fortification ring where they lived for as long as it took to repel the invaders.

 

When they were attacked by the Turks the siege could last a few weeks during which time they would have to store sufficient food for them to survive. They also had to eliminate their waste inside the fortification since it was not safe to venture out when the Turks were there.  This could get a bit unpleasant. Between the 13th and 17th  centuries the church was only rarely captured so the fortification was quite effective.

People who did not follow the rules were obligated to stand outside the church holding a big heavy rock. Huguette, Christiane’s sister, was bad so she had to hold the rock, but could not even lift it. I guess people were stronger back in the day.

 

The fortification also had a moat that was filled with water for added protection. The circular exterior walls were up to 5 m (16ft. in) thick and reached nearly 12 m (39 ft.) in height. There is a second arched wall at the entrance gate. There were 5 towers for defense along with a battlement.  A battlement is defensive architecture that consists of that portion of the city walls that comprise a parapet, in in which gaps or indentations, which are often rectangular, occur at intervals to allow for the launch of arrows or other projectiles from within the defences against invaders. The parapet is a barrier that is an upward extension of a wall at the edge of a roof, terrace, balcony, walkway or other structure.

There were over 270 rooms within the fortification at this church that could offer shelter to about 1,600 villagers when attacked.

Nowadays we think of churches as peaceful places of worship.  Historically however, they were often fought over by the various religions or political forces.  To us a fortified church seems weird.  At one time they were a matter of life or death.