Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedVlad the Impaler
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Poll Question: Vlad Tsepec "The Impaler" of Romania should be....
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [17.39%]
5 [21.74%]
14 [60.87%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Vlad the Impaler
    Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 21:25
so Vlad wasnt but Mehmet II was a cruel bastard!! Hah!
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 21:53
Originally posted by Reginmund

[QUOTE=Evrenosgazi]

Mehmed II was a cruel bastard who impaled and executed people right and left, and so was Vlad.

Dead

that's not a good tone in a healthy discussion, if you have historical complexes simply dont participate.

Vlad isnt/could'nt be an Romanian hero because he did impale people but because he won a campaign against the Ottomans in a time when Ottomans where a major power in taht region. But he was famous by the way he did act after the campaign.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 23:05
First of all, that was an attempt at a light, humorous tone, not a hostile one. I was hoping the sarcastic manner in which I wrote it would make that much clear.

As for historical complexes, I don't believe I suffer from those, otherwise I doubt I would've been able to make light of it. I could of course have worded it differently, but that's just semantics. When I see a cruel bastard, I'll call him a cruel bastard, be he Turk or Romanian. Let's not waste our time making excuses for these people.
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 23:59
Dracula apologists...
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 13:02

There are some nuances about the alleged excessively sadism of Dracula (or of Mehmed II or other ruthless rulers), which are mostly because the proper context is missing. I've already exemplified with 16th century Ottoman Cairo, but now I'm letting a book to speak, addressing also my example (Michael Winter, Egyptian Society under Ottoman rule, 1517-1798, 1992, p. 233, a section on punishment):

It was frequently announced that those who disobeyed orders, such as those concerned with economical measures (new rates of exchange, the opening of shops) or with public security (staying indoors during a night curfew) would pay with their lives. Many people were summarily put to death upon the decision of the governor, his subordinates or an emir, without a hearing before a qadi. The Shari'a procedure often makes conviction difficult, and limits the penalties, including the manner of execution. Many people were put to death for trivial offenses upon the whim of a pasha or an emir. There were many methods of execution, mutilation, torture and other cruel punishments and humiliation which the chroniclers of Ottoman Cairo describe in detail. Execution by impalement was particularly common. At the beginning of the period, the chief of the police impaled in a single day 24 men, most of them thieves and counterfeiters of coins. Women accused of licentiousness were sometimes tied to a horse's tail and dragged through the streets. A particularly infamous method of execution, which was reserved for brigands (often Arab chiefs), was flaying the condemned man alive and then filling his skin with straw, which was then seated on horseback and paraded in front of the Divan.
 
Of course, Vlad's Wallachia and Transylvania were not the same society as 16th century Ottoman Cairo. However, it's a quasi-contemporary standard of cruelty and ruthlessness, and it's not hold by a single person to have him/her demonized as a tyrant. Also, Ottomans were among those to label Vlad as an Impaler, so how could it be?
The Ottoman, German and Hungarian chronicles insist on Vlad's cruelty as being excessive, even for that time. Jacques Le Goff edited several interesting books on the European Middle Ages, and in one of them (I don't remember its title now) there's an interesting study on tyranny, as a medieval concept. The oppresive tyrants were almost always associated with the blood of innocents, anthropophagia and other abominable deeds (following several archetypes - like the biblical Herod killing innocent infants). Vlad's enemies (especially Germans and Hungarians, medieval Europeans whose mentality is the one Le Goff covers) described also real facts (Vlad's ruthlessness and cruelty seems to be real) but also exaggerated them greatly (he's said to have impaled 30,000 merchants and officials in one city when probably not the entire city population was that large!).
To attempt moral judgements on historical personalities it's necessary to adjust the measure accordingly.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:19
Originally posted by Chilbudios

There are some nuances about the alleged excessively sadism of Dracula (or of Mehmed II or other ruthless rulers), which are mostly because the proper context is missing. I've already exemplified with 16th century Ottoman Cairo, but now I'm letting a book to speak, addressing also my example (Michael Winter, Egyptian Society under Ottoman rule, 1517-1798, 1992, p. 233, a section on punishment):

It was frequently announced that those who disobeyed orders, such as those concerned with economical measures (new rates of exchange, the opening of shops) or with public security (staying indoors during a night curfew) would pay with their lives. Many people were summarily put to death upon the decision of the governor, his subordinates or an emir, without a hearing before a qadi. The Shari'a procedure often makes conviction difficult, and limits the penalties, including the manner of execution. Many people were put to death for trivial offenses upon the whim of a pasha or an emir. There were many methods of execution, mutilation, torture and other cruel punishments and humiliation which the chroniclers of Ottoman Cairo describe in detail. Execution by impalement was particularly common. At the beginning of the period, the chief of the police impaled in a single day 24 men, most of them thieves and counterfeiters of coins. Women accused of licentiousness were sometimes tied to a horse's tail and dragged through the streets. A particularly infamous method of execution, which was reserved for brigands (often Arab chiefs), was flaying the condemned man alive and then filling his skin with straw, which was then seated on horseback and paraded in front of the Divan.
 
Of course, Vlad's Wallachia and Transylvania were not the same society as 16th century Ottoman Cairo. However, it's a quasi-contemporary standard of cruelty and ruthlessness, and it's not hold by a single person to have him/her demonized as a tyrant. Also, Ottomans were among those to label Vlad as an Impaler, so how could it be?
The Ottoman, German and Hungarian chronicles insist on Vlad's cruelty as being excessive, even for that time. Jacques Le Goff edited several interesting books on the European Middle Ages, and in one of them (I don't remember its title now) there's an interesting study on tyranny, as a medieval concept. The oppresive tyrants were almost always associated with the blood of innocents, anthropophagia and other abominable deeds (following several archetypes - like the biblical Herod killing innocent infants). Vlad's enemies (especially Germans and Hungarians, medieval Europeans whose mentality is the one Le Goff covers) described also real facts (Vlad's ruthlessness and cruelty seems to be real) but also exaggerated them greatly (he's said to have impaled 30,000 merchants and officials in one city when probably not the entire city population was that large!).
To attempt moral judgements on historical personalities it's necessary to adjust the measure accordingly.
 
Excellent information.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:47

Tsepes' success against the Ottomans was mainly due to the scorched earth tactics he employed. He invaded the Ottoman territory and when the Ottoman army came he retreated, burning everything on his way and poisoning the wells. All the population in the land were Christians and he was criticized by other Christians because of that.

I think the historical sources are correct in calling him extraordinarily cruel, but the numbers such as 20000 Ottomans, 30000 Germans etc are surely exaggerated.
 
Mehmet II, on the hand, was not particularly cruel. He was ruthless, but not cruel. When he wanted Empire, and he would kill anyone to get it, including his brothers. But he protected his subjects of all religions, unlike Vlad.  
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:13
Originally posted by Reginmund

First of all, that was an attempt at a light, humorous tone, not a hostile one. I was hoping the sarcastic manner in which I wrote it would make that much clear.

As for historical complexes, I don't believe I suffer from those, otherwise I doubt I would've been able to make light of it. I could of course have worded it differently, but that's just semantics. When I see a cruel bastard, I'll call him a cruel bastard, be he Turk or Romanian. Let's not waste our time making excuses for these people.
 
No excuses indeed even deeds done by the Swedes!
 
The Swedish authorities resorted to extreme measures against the 17th century rebels known as the "Snapphane", including the use of impalement, where the stake was inserted between the spine and the skin of the victim, the use of wheels to crush victims alive, as well as the nailing of bodies to the church doors. In that way, it could take four to five days before the victim died. [23]
 
More Wiki:
 
The Swedes fought the Snapphane (pro Danish rebels) brutally, and if a Snapphane was captured, he was usually executed and the corpse was impaled and shown where the locals could see it and be intimidated to obedience. Another common method was to crush the prisoners limbs under a rolling wagon called "rdbrkning" (Breaking wheel).
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 17:07
This topic is rediculous.  Why are we yet again comparing the brutality of medieval figures and making judgements from our modern perspective?  It is the "evil Basil II" syndrome all over again.  Yes, we know Vlad was brutal.  So were A, B, and...Z medieval rulers.  But we don't need to keep rehashing the same old anachronistic arguments over and over again.  Why not talk about interesting historical details of his reign, of which there has only been a little in here thus far?
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 02:54
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

This topic is rediculous.  Why are we yet again comparing the brutality of medieval figures and making judgements from our modern perspective?  It is the "evil Basil II" syndrome all over again.  Yes, we know Vlad was brutal.  So were A, B, and...Z medieval rulers.  But we don't need to keep rehashing the same old anachronistic arguments over and over again.  Why not talk about interesting historical details of his reign, of which there has only been a little in here thus far?
 
You bring up a good point.
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 246 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 06:03
Lets face it, to the general public he was a vampire, he's not known  as a military commander. Put  it this way,  to many Christians and namely the Romanian people, he was a great Hero but  to many Muslims, namely Turkish people, he was a evil Murderer.... and never the train shall meet. Its really about Nationialism/Politics more than anything else.
 
 


Edited by Tyranos - 03-Oct-2007 at 06:07
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 06:06
Originally posted by Tyranos

Lets face it, to the general public he was vampire, not military commander. Put  it this way,  to many Christians and namely the Romanian people, he was a great Hero but  to many Muslims, namely Turkish people, he was a evil Murderer.... and never the train shall meet. Its really about Nationialism/Politics more than anything else.
 
Yet another reason why this approach to the topic is so boring and predictable. LOL


Edited by Byzantine Emperor - 03-Oct-2007 at 06:09
Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 06:41
Originally posted by Leonardo

[QUOTE=Reginmund] should shy away from an array of impaled bodies - it was a Turkish specialty after all.
 
 
 
Was it? No doubt impalement occured within the Ottoman system as punishment, but you seem to be suggesting the method has its origins in the Ottoman Empire. I was under the impression the Ottomans had learnt the method from Europeon civilizations, but if I'm wrong, go ahead and enlighten me.
 
As for an "array of impaled bodies", do you mean to say that there are instances of the Ottomans impaling thousands of innocent peasants and villagers, rather then a dozen or so criminals?
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 06:49
I guess this is another opinion rather then discussion forum, so I'll simply express myne rather then debate with others about theirs.
 
Vlad defended his country, and he deserves respect for that. He did a remarkable job of it, and that's why he's remembered as a national hero in Romania. However, I myself can't admire a man who sees fit to murder innocent people in the rank of thousands, particularly harmless peasants. I guess this is a personal thing, my heritage being based upon centuries of peasantry, but taking advantage of the vulnerable like that is a repulsive thing, and anyone who commits such an act is villain, so far as i am concerned. He was a good general, and a brave commander, but at a moral level he is despicable, even by the standards of his era.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 07:38
Without moralizing, I would say Vlad is an incredibly interesting character. His military tactics were, and remain, awesome - especially to us - and the brutality of it is fascinating, even though that may not have been the intention of the initial discussion point. I think he's great.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 12:16

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Mehmet II, on the hand, was not particularly cruel. He was ruthless, but not cruel. When he wanted Empire, and he would kill anyone to get it, including his brothers. But he protected his subjects of all religions, unlike Vlad.

 

Yes, I think this distinction is valid. There are few if any signs that Mehmed II did what he did out of sadistic cruelty, he seems to have been for too pragmatic for such senseless self-indulgence. Fratricide, raiding, looting, impaling and executing high officials who failed in their duties were all part of Ottoman power politics, Mehmed himself did not set any precedence here. Vlad, on the other hand, if the sources are to be believed at least, enjoyed what he did and often based his  capricious punishments on little else than morbid humour.

 

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor

This topic is rediculous.  Why are we yet again comparing the brutality of medieval figures and making judgements from our modern perspective?

 

The interesting case with Vlad is whether he was seen as excessively brutal even by contemporary standards.

 
Originally posted by Seko

No excuses indeed even deeds done by the Swedes!
 
The Swedish authorities resorted to extreme measures against the 17th century rebels known as the "Snapphane", including the use of impalement, where the stake was inserted between the spine and the skin of the victim, the use of wheels to crush victims alive, as well as the nailing of bodies to the church doors. In that way, it could take four to five days before the victim died. [23]
 
By all means, I don't see why it should be any different for the Swedes.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 14:24
Vlad, on the other hand, if the sources are to be believed at least, enjoyed what he did and often based his capricious punishments on little else than morbid humour.


Chilbudios explained that there are two kind of sources: the ones which are acurate and the ones which have been intentionately distorted: those of Brasov commerciants and of Hungarian kingdom.

Vlad didn't made any arbitrary crime, the country was in a desperate estate and he tried to be efficient. He didn't executed peasants, only the criminal boyars , the beggers, some Brasov commerciants and the Turks.

Edited by Menumorut - 03-Oct-2007 at 15:08

Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 15:44

Hence "if the sources are to be believed". And don't forget that as with all historical discussions this is a living debate and even though Chilbudios' contribution was probably the most well-informed of the thread so far it does not constitute irrefutable authority, there is no such thing in the historical science.
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 23:46
I believe Vlad to be a complex character. He is a national hero for defending Romania from the Turks, but at the same time he was very brutal in his methods. Today he would be considered a madman. Even in his time he was considered brutal, but did for a noble cause: defending his land against an encroaching power. 
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 16:46
Originally posted by Reginmund

First of all, that was an attempt at a light, humorous tone, not a hostile one. I was hoping the sarcastic manner in which I wrote it would make that much clear.

As for historical complexes, I don't believe I suffer from those, otherwise I doubt I would've been able to make light of it. I could of course have worded it differently, but that's just semantics. When I see a cruel bastard, I'll call him a cruel bastard, be he Turk or Romanian. Let's not waste our time making excuses for these people.
He is a important historical figure for turks so select your words carefully. And try to overcome your turkish complex
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.