Vlad the Impaler

In Romania, Vlad the Impaler is seen by many as a national hero who batted Turkish agression and even thwarted an invasion by Mehmet the Conqueror after the fall of Constantinople.  However, as his name suggests, he was prone to impaling people, often for minor crimes, a tactic that supposedly led to an eventual absence of crime in medieval Romania (Vlad was actually prince of Wallachia, part of modern-day Romania), and also was used as a fear-inspiring tactic against the Ottomans.  My question is, how do you all view this intriguing figure who served as the basis for Bram Stoker's infamous vampire count.

His father was assassinated and his brother buried alive; some sources even say that the young Vlad may have been forced to watch the burial. This leads most to come to the conclusion that his early acts of cruelty may have been motivated by the need to avenge his family. And thanks to the boyars, we do know that he felt the need to solidify his power, especially since the boyars tended to "make" or "break" Wallachian princes.

Edited by Penelope - 30-Sep-2007 at 16:05

Vlad ruled in the time when the Bzyantine Empire vanished and was replaced by the Ottoman Empire. In such conditions, the treat was seeming to need drastic measures.

Between 1442 and 1448 Vlad and his brother Radu the Beautiful have been prisoners at Turks, from political reasons (his brother will remain prisoner until 1462).

He conquered the throne from his precedesor in 1456 by attacking him with a Turkish group of army (Vladislav II was the assasin of his father). He was 17 years old. In 1459 he arested all the boyars (and their families) responsible for the assasination of his father and brother. The older boyars have been empaled and the younger have been forced to walk 100 km by foot and to built the Poenari fortress.

He was preoccupied that all the inhabitants of Wallachia to work and be useful for community.


In 1462 he lanced a campaign against the Turks from Bulgaria, killing 38.000. Mehmed II was infuried because his two messengers have been humiliated and attacked Wallachia with an army three times larger than Vlad's. When the sultan approached the capital, T�rgoviste, he was terrified by the sight of 20.000 Turkish skulls on pales. This had the pursued psychological effect, the sultan recognising himself defeated and turning back to Istanbul.

An image less known of him:





Edited by Menumorut - 30-Sep-2007 at 20:30

Actually Vlad was not defeated in battle in that campaign. The campaign Mehmed II pursued through Wallachia in the summer of 1462 was of little success as most of the land was scorched ahead of him. The only significant battle of the campaign was the so-called Night Attack from June 17, 1462 which turned to be a Wallachian victory. After this defeat Mehmed II advanced to the capital which he found deserted and nearby the sources say he found 20,000 impaled Muslims and among them the ex-bey of Nicopolis, Hamza Pasha. The next thing the Ottoman army returned. Probably not because of what they saw, but mostly because of famine and disease and the summed casualties. The direct achievements of the campaign were some burnt cities and probably enslaved inhabitants along their way.

Chilbudios exactly. Also, i would just like to add that the Ottomans, as well as the sultan, were probably extremely frightened and or sickened by his "inhuman cruelty", as evidenced by a report of an invading Turkish army turning back in fright after seeing thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. The fact that his body was decapitated by the Turks and his head sent to Constantinople where the sultan had it displayed on a stake as proof that the "horrible Impaler" was finally dead, only proves that they indeed feared him. Whatever the case may be, he is said to have marched against an incredibly huge Turkish army, at the head of a small force of 4000 men. The smaller army was obviously defeated, but this act alone may have won him the hearts of many.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi And how can you think that an ottoman sultan can be afraid of some impaled corpses. I am sure that before this event mehmed the conquerer had seen a lot of impaled men.

Yeah, impalement was the official method, but Ottoman authorities did not execute people for minor offences unlike Vlad Tepes.

Yeah, impalement was the official method, but Ottoman authorities did not execute people for minor offences unlike Vlad Tepes.

Actually impalement was more of warning than an "official method", a method to freighten a certain group of people. At the siege of Constantinople from 1453 the Ottomans used impalement to weaken the morale of the defenders. A year before the siege, in an answer to Constantine XI, Mehmed said that he will impale any ambassador who'd dare to question his authority (the particular case was the Byzantine reaction to building of Rumelihisarı fortress, to control Bosphorus). Mehmed II also impaled or threaten to impale his officers. For instance, during the siege of 1453, in April, after a defeat of the Ottoman navy he ordered the admiral to be impaled and only later he changed his mind and ordered to have him whipped.

Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Oct-2007 at 15:16

Originally posted by Reginmund Originally posted by Evrenosgazi And how can you think that an ottoman sultan can be afraid of some impaled corpses. I am sure that before this event mehmed the conquerer had seen a lot of impaled men.   Ah, yes, I've always found that story somewhat dubious. I can see no reason why a man like Mehmet II, who was no stranger to excessive cruelty himself, should shy away from an array of impaled bodies - it was a Turkish specialty after all.

Again prejudice again bias. I am saying that at the medieval times I dont think that a king will be afraid of dead men even by the impale. This isnt for the turkish sultan.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Again prejudice again bias.�I am saying that at the medieval times I dont think that a king will be afraid of dead men even by the impale. This isnt for the turkish sultan.

Mehmed II was a cruel bastard who impaled and executed people right and left, and so was Vlad. It's not like I'm prejudiced towards the Ottoman Empire/Romania or the modern Turkish/Romanian people by acknowledging the simple fact that certain individuals were by no means politically correct by modern standards. I'd say they were a bit over the top even by contemporary standards.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi For the campaign , Vlad didnt face the ottoman army( because his chance was %0). But instead of this, he harrased the communication lines and made a night attack with some sucsess. But in conclusion he was out of Wallachia for years and his head was in turkish hands.

His chances weren't 0%. Wars had been won against poorer odds before. It was of course unlikely that a Wallachian voivode could stand against the Ottomans in the long run, considering the disparity in military might.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi But acknowledging him as a national hero for Romania isnt an error

I don't know. I wouldn't want him as a hero for my nation, nor would I want Mehmed II.