Vlad the impaler

[pavelsu]

The Rumanian prince Vlad the Impaler, son of Vlad Dracul the devil inspired Bram Stokes´s "Dracula". He is considered in the whole world one of the most terrifying figures of the history due to his "slightly" bloody customs . Nevertheless for the Rumanians he is a national hero and we cant forget that Vlad stoped the Turks when they were going to invade Europe (it was his habit of impaling Turks the reason he was nominated the impaler)
Was Vlad as bad guy as we think?

[CrazyDuck]

All i know bout Vlad the Impaler is that he had a habit of impaling people he didn't like on big spikes.

I look foward to seeing the replies

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

here is a nice site on Vlad Tepes.

http://members.aol.com/johnfranc/drac05.htm

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Originally posted by pavelsu

Was Vlad as bad guy as we think?

Simple question, but the answer is so damn complicated I won't even try to answer. Different people say different things. Ask Anglo-German merchants or Romanian Boyars and they'd say he's a monster. Ask Russian Boyars and rulers and they'd say he was an excellent ruler who got too carried away. Ask Romanian peasants and he's a god-send.

The only way I could put it into context would be: He did what he thought he needed to do to keep the Turks out of Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania and the rest of Europe. He believed the end justified the means. He was a VERY effective ruler, but he just put off the inevitable, when he died so did dreams of resistance against the Turks in the Balkans. I wasn't there so I can't tell you if he was 'evil' (as if such a thing existed) though I would concede that he did many unnecassary and grim things.

For some real info go to this excellent site:



http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/vlad


This site has an incredible view of the subject and uses logic and objectivism to actually analyze this rather than writing him off as a demented sociopath with too much executive power. If you've ever wondered about what really happened read this sites info.

For the best info get 'Dracula-Prince of Many Faces' by Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally. This is the best source I've seen on the subject of Voivode Dracula.

[pavelsu]

nice links!

Ask Romanian peasants and he's a god-send

yes, for the Romanians Bram Stokes is the real devil.

[SKILORD]

welll he wasn't that bad i suppose.... ruthless yes but he did save Europe from the Turks (to some degree)

[Vrylakas]

Pavelsu wrote:

yes, for the Romanians Bram Stokes is the real devil.

Back after '89 Romanians were stunned when as Western toursist began to flood into the country, they all started asking for "Dracula's Castle". The last time I went back to Transylvania (1996) just about every castle I saw had a sign on or near it claiming THIS was Dracula's castle...

Ol' Bram sort of mixed up some of the history as well in his book, but I suppose fiction often takes some liberties with history.

As for the real Vlad Tepes, well, the Balkans were a Highway 66 for the Ottomans into Central Europe and he was just one of many warlords who were able to keep ancient Moldavia and Wallachia relatively autonomous within the Ottoman system. His methods were gruesome, but I'm not so sure his contemporaries in the Balkans were as shocked as we are.

[wolfea66]

Here's my old Vlad the Impaler site.........

http://www.geocities.com/wolfea66/ :flamedevi :die!:

[wolfea66]

http://www.geocities.com/wolfea66/] http://www.geocities.com/wolfea66/[/URL]

[Simon Darkshade]

YES!

Vlad was a great guy and a true role model, with interesting methods of solving welfare dependency

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by pavelsu
Nevertheless for the Rumanians he is a national hero and we cant forget that Vlad stoped the Turks when they were going to invade Europe (it was his habit of impaling Turks the reason he was nominated the impaler)
Was Vlad as bad guy as we think?

He isn't a national hero for Romanians.
In fact in old Romanian history books and chronicles ( so-called letopisetze ) his name is relatively unknown !!

For example - "Letopisetzul Tarii Romanesti de la Mateiu Basarab pîna încoace" ( ~ translation "Chronicle of Valachia from Mateiu Basarab - first known ruler of this province - until today" ) - written in aproximately 1670 AD - mentioned the period in which "Vlad the Impaler" rules in ... 6-7 lines !!
For example another king - which rules only few years !! - Ioan Voda cel Cumplit ( ~ King Ioan the Terible ) was mentioned in almost 5 pages - include here detalied descriptions of his battles with Turks, killing of boyars ( feudal lords ), building churches and so on !!

So - for a long period of time this king was almost unknown not only to most of the people, but also for historians !!

In fact first time when romanians historians look close to Vlad the Impaler was during the period which preceed the Russian-Romanian-Turks war in 1877 ( in which our country gains its independence ). For political and propagandistic reasons then was neccesary to find rulers which wasn't defeated by the Turks !! Vlad the Impaler was one of this ( in fact he fought only 3 battles ... ) so those 6 lines from the old chronicles was exagerated and was transformed in 60 pages !!

You know ... the poets and the soldiers in first line need some models !!

So - in conclusion - we probably never know how was like person and what was the action of real Vlad the Impaler - but only distortions in both way !!

And anyway - is a big mistake to judge those times with our standards - extrem severe punishment was used all over the Europe - boiling in oil in England, horses disembodies in France and so on. Sad, but true ...

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...

[Lefty Scaevola]

He apears to have had an ego and vanity grossly disproportiately large even for his exalted stations.

[History Guy]

Despite his barbarities, I have a certain soft spot for Vlad Teppes, the son of the dragon.

OK...maybe I don't...but...Vlad Teppes must be credited for effectively booting the Turks out of Eastern Europe, and thus saving Christendom from destruction. The Turks had already tried their luck in Spain and Austria, and they were now sliding about in good old Romania. In a sense, then, it's a good thing old Vlad the Impaler was there to stop them. Whatever people say of him and his tactics (i.e. sticking live Turks on long, sharp pieces of timber) we must remember that those tactics actually worked and the Turks did not take over Romania. Despite being an inhuman monster, Vlad Teppes saved Christendom, or at the very least the Orthodox Church in Romania. Heck, perhaps he'll be Saint Vlad Teppes one of these days...though I rather doubt it...

Maybe Vlad Teppes wasn't :santa: but he wasn't :vampire: either.

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Originally posted by pavelsu
Nevertheless for the Rumanians he is a national hero and we cant forget that Vlad stoped the Turks when they were going to invade Europe (it was his habit of impaling Turks the reason he was nominated the impaler)

He was a great man

Imagine what would europe be like if the Turks conquered Rumania? I'm glad there was a Vlad!

[klazlo]

Reading these posts I think that Vlad's performance against the Turks is quite overestimated - at least in terms of defending Europe or the Christianity. I don't think that Moldavia and Wallachia was primery targets of the Turkish army. The Turks were basically headed towards the Habsburg Austria. After invading most of the parts of the Hungarian Kingdom (and keeping it for 150 years) they had to realize that for several reasons (logistic, climate etc.) it was the end of range of their main army. They had two sieges on Vienna, both were unsuccessful because their army could stay there only for a very limited time since the Asian troops had to get back before the winter comes (some raids could happen, but that doesn't make any difference).

So Vlad undoubtly had a large influence on the history of Moldavia and Wallachia and he was probably a good politician (I don't know whether he was more sadistic than any ruler at that time) but he had nothing to do with saving Europe.

The legend of "saving Europe" is common in the Hungarian thinking also, because Hungary was the last conquered kingdom for the Turks (actually it was divided into three parts: Turkish occupation area, the remained territory of the kingdom near the Austrian border and Transylvania), but this is false for Hungary also.

And the messing with Dracula, his father was a member of the Dragon Knighthood. (sorry if somebody have already pointed out this)

[animepornstar]

i also thought that vlad was a terrifying figure until i met i guy (one of my class mates) from transylvania. he said that vlad scared the turks away by kidnapping the turk leader´s son and killing him up on the defence wall when the turks were approaching and then vlad drank his blood. the impale thing came from that they had sharps poles standing infront of their walls so when the attackers tried to climb up on the walls but fell down they were impaled.

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Actually Animepornstar, he did a little worse than that. When a mass of cavalry and Jannisaries were approaching Tirgoviste Vlad took 20,000 prisoners (Turkish and otherwise) and impaled them around the city walls. This so digusted the Turkish army (not an easy thing to do) that they turned back at the gates and were only rallied by Radu, Vlad's brother. That is the story of the 'Forest of the Impaled'.

Vlad made incredible strides in the wars against the Turks. Being one of the first Europeans to use gunpowder effectively. Unfortunately he was so outnumbered and undersupplied that it was, but a matter of time. Very sad I think.

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by klazlo
I don't think that Moldavia and Wallachia was primery targets of the Turkish army.

I don't want to seem patriotical when unnecessary but this two Romanian provinces was the primery target of Turks in XV century. Grace of Vlad the Impaler and Stefan cel Mare ( ~Steven the Great ) they was not completely defeated but anyway stopped for a time.
In the beggining of XVI century the Turks changed the axis for their attacks south of Danube to the Serbs and cross to the Central Europe. Because of a big strategical mistake of their king the Serbs loose the battle of Kossovo ...

So after this collapse of course the Moldavia and Vallachia was not longer the primary target - the road was open in another part.

Regards

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


I don't want to seem patriotical when unnecessary but this two Romanian provinces was the primery target of Turks in XV century. Grace of Vlad the Impaler and Stefan cel Mare ( ~Steven the Great ) they was not completely defeated but anyway stopped for a time.
In the beggining of XVI century the Turks changed the axis for their attacks south of Danube to the Serbs and cross to the Central Europe. Because of a big strategical mistake of their king the Serbs loose the battle of Kossovo ...

So after this collapse of course the Moldavia and Vallachia was not longer the primary target - the road was open in another part.

Regards

Thanks for the comment Ioan, basically I wanted to refer that the Turkish expansion on the Balkan had strategic targets: those ones who had their own expansionistic plans, and this was Hungary until 1526 (battle of Mohacs) and the Habsburg Austria after this - though this playfield originally was not Austria's main objective.

The states in the Balkan at that time were weaker than the Turks and after the death of king Matthias, Hungary became that weak also. Weak kingdoms are usually not strategic targets, after their conquest they work as buffer zones. But otherwise, you're right.

[alephz]

It is curious, Vlad was famous because he impaled many people, but he learned impalation techniches from Turks, because he was a hostage of the Turks when he was child, so it seems he only paid Turks with same coin.