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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Vlad the Impaler
    Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 17:10
Please presume good faith!
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: 07-Oct-2007 at 20:39
Originally posted by Reginmund

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.

I don't think this difference can stand on a more serious analysis. There plenty of testimonies with Mehmed II (or his army, not necessarily led by him) mass-executing and impaling the civilian people from various villages and settlements and not only (like that Venetian ship which attempted to cross the Bosphorus in 1452, whose captain was impaled and the crew decapitated) and as well there are testimonies with Vlad doing whatever cruel acts as a "power politics" and not "capricious punishments on little else than morbit humour". Laonikos Chalkokondyles, a Byzantine chroncler of the 15th century, says that his executions were for strengthening his rule and the reorganization of Dacia (Wallachia) in the eventual conflict with the Ottoman Empire. Some Raguzan chroncles even give the name Dragul(a) with the etymology "dear, loved" and paint Vlad as a true Christian champion against the Ottomans. Many chronicles paint his cruel acts as being targeted only against villains and that by them Wallachia succeeded to become a very safe land. Sieveing for Vlad only the hostile accounts and taking for other ruthless rulers of his time only the elogious accounts, certainly is not applying the same measure for them all. Perhaps Vlad was no more "monstruous" or "sadistic" than Louis XI of France, Mehmed II or Richard III of England.

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: 07-Oct-2007 at 21:20
Well, it's just speculation based on how the sources tend to portray Vlad as doing these things with a streak of morbid humour. I don't believe you find anything similar in connection with Mehmed II or Louis XI. Of course the sources can be distorting reality. In any case it's merely a suggestion of how it might've been, as history often becomes when our source material is poor.

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

He is a important historical figure for turks so select your words carefully. And try to overcome your turkish complex


Why should I choose my words carefully? Is this supposed to be a threat? I believe I'm within my full rights to give any opinion I happen to have on Mehmed II or any other figure of history. Do you disagree?

And again; I don't have a Turkish complex. I might have a cruel bastard complex though.

Edited by Reginmund - 07-Oct-2007 at 21:23
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: 07-Oct-2007 at 21:51
Maybe I do not find chronicles about morbid humour but I can find plenty about (apparently) unnecessary cruelty and massacring the (apparent) innocents. As we were on Mehmed, here's on from the conquest of Otranto in 1480 (at the end of his reign, but not an army led by him):
 
There was in Otranto a bishop of irreproachable conduct and old age. These savage barbarians, the Turks (more like dogs than humans one might say) subjected this man to a most horrible death, without consideration of his dignity or his age, without any pity or fear of God, whatsoever. They impaled his body from his groin all the way to his head so that his entrails were completely pushed out of the body.
 
or if you want deeds ordered by him, check Doukas's accounts where he massacred some peasants in 1452 because they dared to complain that the construction work at Rumelihisarı ruins their lands. The story with the Venetian merchant ship whose captain was impaled and crew massacred is also told by Doukas.
 
Oh, and on Vlad sources do not tend to portray him as a monster, only a selection of them does. If you just pick Ottoman sources you'll certainly see him as a monster. If you get a mixed bunch of Ottoman, Byzantine, Slavonic, German, Italian, etc. sources you'll get a much more complex character and many stories of cruelty are not confirmed or told in a different manner by other sources. Also many sources are distorted in the popularization of the historical character Vlad. It is usually told that a Slavonic chronicle testified for him torturing small animals in his prison from Buda but it is not told that the same source also testifies that his cruelty in his country was directed at villains, no matter if rich and poor, and that the people became so honest in Wallachia that on a fountain's edge was a golden cup every traveller used to drink water with it but no one dared to steal it. It is usually told he mutilated women's genitals but it's not told that this was the punishment for adultery. If the sources are misread, the picture gets fatally incomplete.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Oct-2007 at 22:04
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: 08-Oct-2007 at 01:31
Originally posted by Chilbudios

It is usually told he mutilated women's genitals but it's not told that this was the punishment for adultery.


Ah, well as long as it was for adultery!

Point taken though, but I wouldn't go too far with trying to give Vlad a favourable comparison with Mehmed II. I'd say men like them deserve each other.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 04:37

So apparently only unfavourable sources are avcceptable for Mehmet II but only favourable one for Vlad?

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 05:01
No way, Mehmet II was great too. By the time he was my age he had conquered Constantinople. What's unfavourable about that?
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: 08-Oct-2007 at 05:17
The premise of this thread was a bit suspicious from the beginning because it invited people to judge Vlad and Mehmet from modern standards.  In the study of history, this is anachronistic.  I, as well as others I am sure, appreciated the input of Beylerbeyi and Chilbudios, who discussed Vlad and Mehmet II in the context of the sources and the 15th century.  But not many commented on what these individuals posted. 
 
Not that you are being prevented from voicing your non-historical opinion, for surely we have seen a good deal of that in here, but rather we are seeing the same thing said over and over.  Therefore, I think the thread has exhausted its purpose and should be closed.
 
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 0.078 seconds.