Despite being some of the last nations in the Eastern Bloc to collapse, they seemed to be very different from each other. While one was considered the most peaceful one, the other was considered the most violent of the revolutions of the time. I understand that Ceausescu was considered a much more 'violent' leader, but are there any other reasons for this? Why did the Czechoslovakian government go down peacefully while the Romanian president was executed almost as soon as he was caught?
By "violent revolution" you only refer to the execution of Ceauşescu. Czechoslovakia actually had casualties in the riots leading up to the revolution.
While both countries were satellite states for the USSR, Romania was firstly in Ceauşescu's control and then under the USSR's influence. He was the face of all the wrong-doing in the country. He was universally hated. Most of the people protesting didn't know a thing about the government as a whole, they only knew that he was the head of it. His downfall and execution were firstly symbolic to the rebirth of the country and secondly as a kind of revenge against an oppressor that kept their culture down. ( destroyed numerous historical buildings and villages to urbanized the country ).
Even with the "security", Romanians were religious and nationalistic ( not in the propaganda communist way, but in the freedom way )
Sources: Grandma, Dad and me.