Moldova Bacalaureat History of Romanians and Universal History common mistakes
Moldova Bacalaureat History of Romanians and Universal History · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to place a source in its period, the candidate dates it by the century the author lived in rather than by the events the text describes, so a chronicle written in the 17th century about the 15th-century reigns of Stephen the Great is labelled '17th century' and the answer is marked wrong.
The candidate reads the introductory attribution line ('chronicle of Grigore Ureche') and stops there, treating the author's lifetime as the subject of the source. School practice often drills author–century pairs without separating 'when it was written' from 'what it narrates'.
What to do instead
Before answering, write two separate notes: 'date of composition' and 'period described'. Answer whichever the prompt asks for, and if it asks for the historical period, quote the event markers in the text (names, battles, titles) as evidence. Practise with paired prompts on the same source so the distinction becomes automatic.
On chronological ordering tasks the candidate sorts events by the century label alone and leaves same-century items in the order they appear in the list, instead of ordering by exact year or reign.
Century labels feel sufficient because textbooks group material by century, and the candidate does not hold a mental timeline of exact dates for key events (1453, 1475, 1600, 1859, 1918, 1940, 1989).
What to do instead
Build a one-page timeline of 30–40 anchor dates covering the whole syllabus and memorise them to the year. On any ordering task, first assign each item an exact year from memory, then sort numerically; if two items share a year, use the month or the sequence of the reign.
The candidate treats 'Romanization' as a single event dated to 106 and then cannot explain why Latin-derived language and institutions persisted after the Roman withdrawal, so answers about continuity collapse into a yes/no assertion.
Textbook headings compress a multi-century process into one date (the conquest of Dacia), and the candidate memorises the date without the mechanisms of colonization, urban life, army recruitment, and Christianization.
What to do instead
Prepare a short causal chain: conquest 101–106, colonization and veterans, mines and roads, Latin as administrative language, Edict of Caracalla 212 extending citizenship, Christianization, withdrawal of the army and administration under Aurelian around 271–275. For continuity questions, cite archaeology and language as evidence rather than asserting continuity.
When asked about the medieval Romanian principalities, the candidate confuses institutions and titles across Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania, for example attributing the title of voivode and the institution of the domnie identically to all three, or placing the Transylvanian voivodate under a Romanian dynasty.
The three territories are taught in parallel chapters with similar vocabulary, and the candidate learns the vocabulary without attaching it to a specific political framework (independent principality versus province under the Kingdom of Hungary).
What to do instead
Make a three-column table with rows for status, ruler's title, central institutions, church organisation, and suzerain. Fill it from the syllabus, then answer each question by naming the territory first and reading the relevant row aloud before writing.
On 16th–18th century questions the candidate reduces Ottoman relations to 'paying tribute' and cannot distinguish suzerainty from annexation, or explain the difference between the obligations of Wallachia and Moldavia and the status of the Crimean Khanate or Transylvania.
The phrase 'under Ottoman rule' in summary material blurs the graded spectrum of autonomy, and the candidate has not learned the specific obligations (haraci, gifts, restriction of foreign policy, garrisons at the Danube fortresses) as a list.
What to do instead
Learn the terms of the capitulations and the tributary status as a checklist: annual tribute, restrictions on fortifying cities, prohibition of independent foreign treaties, hosting of Ottoman garrisons. Contrast this with direct annexation into a pashalik and with the autonomous status of Transylvania under the Porte after 1541.
The candidate answers a question about the 1848 revolutions in the Romanian lands by describing only the Wallachian proclamation and ignores the Moldavian movement and the Transylvanian assembly, or merges the three programmes into one.
The Wallachian revolution is the most dramatic and best-remembered episode, and revision notes tend to be built around one narrative; the candidate generalises from the strongest memory.
What to do instead
Keep a separate card per territory with date, leaders, key documents (the Islaz proclamation, the Blaj assembly and its petitions) and demands. When a prompt says 'the Romanian lands', explicitly check all three before writing and name each in the answer.
On questions about the formation of the Romanian state the candidate states that the Union of 1859 was achieved by a single election, missing the double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza in Iași and Bucharest and the role of the ad-hoc assemblies and the Paris Convention.
The outcome is remembered as a slogan ('the small union'), and the procedural steps are treated as detail; the candidate has not reconstructed the sequence of 1856–1862.
What to do instead
Learn the sequence as a chain: Treaty of Paris 1856 and the return of southern Bessarabia, ad-hoc assemblies 1857, Convention of Paris 1858, elections in January 1859 in both principalities, recognition of the double election, union of the armies and administration 1861–1862, constitution of 1866 and the arrival of Carol I. Recite the chain aloud before answering.
When asked about Greater Romania the candidate lists the union declarations of 1918 without distinguishing Bessarabia's conditional act (with its conditions on autonomy and agrarian reform) from the unconditional decisions of Bukovina and Transylvania, and cannot explain why the Paris peace treaties of 1919–1920 mattered.
The three unions are taught as one triumphant story, so the different legal wording and the diplomatic ratification are flattened; the candidate memorises dates (27 March, 28 November, 1 December) without the content of the acts.
What to do instead
For each province record date, deciding body, conditions attached, and the treaty that recognised it (Saint-Germain, Trianon, the Bessarabia treaty with the Allies). Then practise explaining in two sentences why recognition by the Great Powers was a separate step from the vote.
On interwar and Second World War questions the candidate blurs the territorial losses of 1940 into one event and cannot state which power took which province, or confuses the Vienna awards with the Treaty of Craiova.
The losses happened within months and are emotionally framed as a single catastrophe in textbooks, so the candidate remembers the shock rather than the diplomatic instruments.
What to do instead
Memorise a four-row table: Bessarabia and northern Bukovina (Soviet ultimatum, June 1940), northern Transylvania (Second Vienna Award, August 1940), southern Dobruja (Treaty of Craiova, September 1940), and note the later reversal for northern Transylvania after 1944. Test yourself by naming the instrument, the date and the power from each row.
On post-war and Cold War questions the candidate describes Romanian communism as a monolith, without distinguishing the phases (the imposition of the people's democracy 1945–1947, the Gheorghiu-Dej years, the Ceaușescu national-communism after 1965, the austerity of the 1980s) or the role of the Soviet factor.
The period is often summarised by a single moral judgement, and the candidate substitutes evaluation for chronology; the syllabus phases are not learned as a dated framework.
What to do instead
Build a phase table with dates, leaders, key measures (nationalisation 1948, collectivisation, the 1965 constitution and the change of party name, the 1966 abortion decree, the 1971 July theses, the 1989 revolution) and one line on the international context of each. Answer by locating the question in a phase before writing.