Fellow history majors, perhaps you can help me with this (or anyone else who likes history for that matter).
We all know the story of Vlad the Impaler, the "Son of the Dragon" who mercilessly tortured and killed his enemies as well as innocent men, women, and children.
So why do certain people in Romania see him as some sort of folk hero? My guess was that he dealt with the Turks and other possible invaders.
But how does defending one's country justify the murders of thousands of people in such a cruel fashion?
2007-09-09 18:30:52 · 11 answers · asked by chrstnwrtr 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Even one Turkish leader, who was a "man's man" and never got sick at the sight of blood, was sickened by the sight of 20,000 of his fellow Turks impaled on spikes.
2007-09-09 18:38:29 · update #1
You have some good answers above. A recent History Channel International program did go into this "national hero stuff". As I recall this may have been during the era of Nicolae Ceauşescu (~1967-1989) who was tried and executed in 1989 (along with his wife) under charges of genocide himself. As for the barbarity of impaling, the 15th century was not known for its humanity. In England they were still hanging, drawing, and quartering people such as William Wallace in 1305 and Guy Fawkes with his fellow conspirators after the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Vlad was one of the last defenders of Europe from the Islamic invasions which reached the gates of Vienna by 1683. The war between Islam and the Christian world has been ongoing for over 1300 years. In fact, I call it the "1300 years war" in my world history college classes.
2007-09-10 03:16:49 · answer #1 · answered by Spreedog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Vlad The Impaler History Channel
2016-10-29 06:56:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right, from what I have heard, it was because he was fighting the Turks.
It's difficult to imagine anyone justifying genocide for national defense. Stalin did this with his own people, estimates run around the 20,000 level. In the first Crusade, one monk said that the blood of the slain (in the mosque) was up to the horses' knees. The slain was mostly Muslims, though there were Jews, and some Armenian Christians included in the body count.
Histories are usually written by the victors, someone once said, so the rationale goes "we're good, they're bad".
Lincoln said:
"In great contests, both sides claim to be acting in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time."
Most people believe today that our Civil War, about which Mr. Lincoln was speaking there, was a righteous conflict, and the result was righteous, yet there were 620,000 killed in just under 4 years (about 3 days short between April 12, 1861 and April 9, 1865).
So I agree, it's hard to justify slaughter of this kind, and for a moral man (like Lincoln) harder still to order it.
2007-09-09 19:06:33 · answer #3 · answered by william_byrnes2000 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That stuff about mercilessly torturing his enemies and innocent people etc. are just silly medieval horror stories, they have little in common with real history; actually, very little is known about the life and actions of Vlad the Impaler.
The only serious mention of any atrocities is a letter of his dated February 1462, in which he says that during his campaign against the Ottoman Empire between December 1461 and January 1462 in Northern Bulgaria he and his army have killed "23.884 Turks and Bulgarians, without counting those that we burned alive in their houses or those that weren't beheaded by our soldiers."
Anyway, in Romanian folklore there's no mention of him torturing or killing innocent people, on the contrary he is seen as the one person that (using very harsh punishments) managed to eliminate all the criminals, thieves, liars, beggars, lazy people etc. from the country - that's why he is sometimes viewed as a hero.
2007-09-09 23:49:10 · answer #4 · answered by XIII 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
From what I have read, you are correct. The battle against the Turks is an important part of Balkan history. The bad blood is evident still. Both sides fear attack from the other more than they do from superpowers or other neighbors. It's hard to understand the the massacres that were routine in many ancient battles, but we have easily out done them in modern times.
2007-09-09 19:41:22 · answer #5 · answered by riderpops 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try checking the History Channel (or History International) on this one. There's been various shows on the real Dracula (aka Vlad Tepes, aka Vlad the Impaler) that have talked about that.
2007-09-09 18:46:51 · answer #6 · answered by knight1192a 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello,
The Romanians realized that he helped stop the Muslim incursion into Europe and is regarded as an El Cid or Charles Martel type. Many Romanians I know do not think he has been credited enough for this.
Cheers,
Michael Kelly
2007-09-09 19:07:44 · answer #7 · answered by Michael Kelly 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I believe the reason is he did what it took to fight off the Muslim Turks to preserve Christianity. he partly learned his cruel ways from years of imprisonment by the Turks. FYI - most of his life he followed the Romanian Orthodox faith but died a Catholic and fought in the Crusades.
2007-09-09 18:53:29 · answer #8 · answered by chit-chaat7 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's one of the few Romanian leaders who did something for this pusillanimous country. In those times the Turks were really bad, and this guy fought against them, for Romania.(the bastard!!!).
2007-09-10 06:20:32 · answer #9 · answered by fast&furious 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the thought of being nationalistic just like KAMIKASHI in Japan or Lapulapu cutting the head of the explorer who discover Philippines. ^_^
2007-09-09 18:48:34 · answer #10 · answered by Melvin U M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋