Vlad III Dracula (Tepes): his world

Greetings! I'm pursuing a major project on Vlad 3 Dracula and I am having trouble finding a detailed map that contains Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvannia, Banat, Hungary, as well as Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Herzegovina. Of course, I'm also terribly curious as to what were considered important cities and fortresses in that time. I realize the borders during the latter half of the 15th century were rather sketchy, but I'd appreciate any help anyone has to give.

I am myself interested in Romanian history during the later part of the 15th Century. Because of language problems I have not specilized myself in this fascinating history. Are you doing a bigger work about Vlad the Impaler as an academic work or as a school work? :)

You benzin mention that Vlad was a vassal of King Matthias of Hungary. That is interesting because I have understood that Wallachia was not under the Kingdom of Hungary. It was instead its own territory. Transsylvania on the other hand was "part" of the Kingdom of Hungary. Vlad did not rule in Transsylvania but in Wallachia! Can you refer to something where it says that Wallachia and in that way Vlad the Impaler was a "vassal of King Matthias"!? Thank you. :)

"The envoy of pope Pius II. saw Dracula in his jail, he told the following about him : he is not tall, but very muscular and strong, his outlook is cruel and scary, his eagle like nose is quite big with large nose holes, his face is thin and pale, his eyelashes are long around his large blue eyes. His thick black eyebrowes made his look threataning. Unless his mustache his face is shaved. His high cheekbones made his head looks bigger. His head is continued by his bull like neck wich connected his broad shoulders with it. His hair is curly and black, falling to his shoulders."

You can see the borders on this map :
http://keptar.oszk.hu/005600/005644/3ab_nagykep.jpg

With pink its Hungary in the 1460s, the large white mass on the south is the territories under Türkish rule. and what you see written as Havasalföld (Snowy flatlands), its Wallachia.

What is everyone's opinion on Vlad? Cruel but just leader, or psychopath? 

Yeah, I heard that too, but how much of the negativity surrounding him can be trusted? From what I read most of the cruel legends about him are written by enemies, and he is still a hero in Romania to many people. 

Originally posted by ryzombie619 Yeah, I heard that too, but how much of the negativity surrounding him can be trusted? From what I read most of the cruel legends about him are written by enemies, and he is still a hero in Romania to many people.

I don't see any uncompatiblity between the two notions - people had been cruel for centuries, and enjoyed torturing, as long as it's not inflicted on them, and no one saw nything wrong with it. It;s only during the last 2-3 centuries the ethics started changing and now we abhor sadism, and see it as abnormal - but no one saw it like that in, say, Ancient Rome - people were used to violence and cruelty, it was part of life; gladiators killed each other, slaves were tortured when a household problem appeared, slaves were bought for sexual usage and sadistic torture, kids were molested as a part of everyday life - so, this was different time. In some ways Vlad had to be cruel, so everyone fear him, and the Turks were truly terrified of him and ran away, when they invaded his territories and found a whole field covered with the inhabitatants of a village all impaled on stakes /if I remember right/, he wouldn't have the same effect if he was a teddy bear.

We cannot judge a historical character who lived in different era with different ethics and different social reality, and impose on him/her our modern social and psychological standards. Vlad being cruel doesn't make him not able have been a just ruler, he just lived in a different time with different ethics. Ivan the Terrible was cruel too - he had a personal torture chamber under his palace so he and his sadistic friends can have their fun on helpless human beings, and killed puppies as a kid; but he was a good tsar in all other respects - he practically built the Russian medieval state into a multunational empire, conquering Siberia, the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, established close relations with England, thus taking Russia out of it's Eastern isolation. He was probably suffering from a mental disease, hence the tortures, but this didn't make him incapable to rule, and be a good ruler. I'm giving him as an example to support my point that Vlad's cruelty doesn't makes him necessarily unjust or ineffective leader.

Well, we can say this about everything we know on any given historical period or person. History is not an exact science, it's more like stories told by different people in different times, all of them with their own agenda and POV. Even what we read now from contemporary historians differ - I read that the forest of people were Vlad's own subjects, while you read that it was Turkish troops - I have to admit that your version is more logical, and it's probably the right one.

But in general when talking history we talk only suppositions and guesses, and even the best supported opinion is only our best educated guess in the moment. That's why I try to leave as many open doors for other ideas and use as many relative words as I can. The bottom line is - if we want to be able to talk history at all, we have to accept what we know as a possibility, allowing for other ones, knowing we cannot be sure of anything; but to reject what we know as not-trusted will invalidate any conversation about history whatsoever.

"The authenticity of the source is of central importance and its representative has to be assessed."

Agreed, take Joan of Arc for example. I did my seminar essay on her and the material I came across was full of tales that you'd see in the Bible. Joan was wounded in the heart, yet she refused medical care and carried on with the battle. Joan, having never seen the Dauphin before, finds him in a crowd of many. Joan warns a man that if he stands close to the trebuchet it will be his undoing, the next day a man standing near it was killed when a rock fell on him. Joan gave speeches to the men when they fought poorly and we able to win after the speech. It's easy to see the exaggeration in those stories. While parts of it were true (Joan was wounded). How would a young woman, wounded in the chest with an arrow, have been able to lift her banner and continue the battle without retiring for medical care? Or what is the likelihood that this girl, who has never seen the Dauphin before, could pick out the Dauphin immediately in a large crowd?

But both of you make good points. I don't think Bonde, that Don Quixote was saying the authenticity does not matter. I think that you just have to take certain sources with a grain of salt. Was Dracula cruel? By our standards, sure. Back then? Probably not. The stories that we hear about him that state he was cruel or evil were probably written after all this happened, or were written by political opponents (which he had many). That is not to say he didn't impale people he most certainly did. Stories like when he nailed the caps of those two Ottoman messengers to their foreheads and making the man dine amongst the rotting corpses of the impaled people is probably exaggerated because it is meant to look evil. That is just my view. 


Edited by ryzombie619 - 05-Mar-2012 at 12:02