Vlad the Impaler

[Lago PARANOIA]

Okay, so there have been several people talking about how his reputation was mostly exaggerated by his enemies and that he wasn't really any worse or better than his contemporaries.

Is that true or is it just apologetics?

[Cynic]

this is my ignorance talking
. he was real ?

[JonSetanta]

It's history, which means it's maybe 10% true at best.

[Zinegata]

He's real. And his cruelty wouldn't exactly be out of place given the times he lived in.

In fact, the Romanians kinda see him as a national hero who fought against the Ottomans who were trying to conquer them.

[Doom]

I think he was crueler than his contemporaries, despite the arguments I've read.

He impaled thousands of people on stakes and had them die slowly. He did a bunch of other nasty things that, individually, his contemporaries did too, but I think overall he's on the level of Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan as far as viciousness, as opposed to "just a typical despot of the era".

He's a national hero, it's true...but so is Genghis, among other "notables".

[Username17]

In Uzbekistan they still sing songs about how awesome Tamerlane was and how many infidels he killed. In Bulgaria they still wear the Ottoman coins that their ancestors made into necklaces to prove that they had killed Turks. And in Romania they not only put Vlad the Impaler onto their fucking currency, but they go on and on about how spiritual Valerian Trifa was and how Communism was a Jewish plot.

There are lots of places in the world where people are barbarians. Just recently, the United Nations passed a resolution that removes "sexual preference" from the list of things that it is unacceptable to arbitrarily execute people for. And yes, Romania did side with the minority on that one (along with the United States and even Serbia). But the point remains that horrible behavior is not only endemic throughout the world, but still celebrated all over the Earth.

And yes, Vlad the Impaler murdered thousands of people by public torture. He is well remembered in Romania for several reasons. The first is that he genuinely improved the economy by having a bunch of nobles tortured to death and giving their lands to new city charters. Second, because he killed a lot of Muslims. Most of the people he put on sticks as psychological warfare against the Turks were prisoners of war from the Ottoman empire.

-Username17

[Koumei]

I'd be horrified at the UN there, but when they make good decisions nobody listens, so really this should be no different, right? I mean, have they ever actually done anything?

[Username17]

I'd be horrified at the UN there, but when they make good decisions nobody listens, so really this should be no different, right? I mean, have they ever actually done anything?

They do some reasonably effective aid work. They sponsor some nice international medical cooperation. They invaded Korea that one time.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

He impaled thousands of people on stakes and had them die slowly. He did a bunch of other nasty things that, individually, his contemporaries did too, but I think overall he's on the level of Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan as far as viciousness, as opposed to "just a typical despot of the era".

The thing is, the typical despot of that era was generally expected to simply torture and kill all of his enemies. This was well before the Rennaisance, and well after Pax Romana. Chivalry was the exception, rather than the rule, in the 1400s.

Moreover, at most Vlad killed about 100,000 people in his entire career. Genghis, by contrast, often killed that many people in just a single battle or siege. Vlad is well-remembered for his cruelty, but it's on a much smaller scale compared to real scourges against civilization like Genghis Khan.

[Calibron]

I wouldn't call Genghis Khan a scourge of civilization, more like the most atrocious wildfire ever, where the trees are people and the forest is human history; he destroyed individual cultures and nations and killed a ridiculous amount of people, but he didn't necessarily hurt civilization so much as cause it to change drastically.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I wouldn't call Genghis Khan a scourge of civilization, more like the most atrocious wildfire ever, where the trees are people and the forest is human history; he destroyed individual cultures and nations and killed a ridiculous amount of people, but he didn't necessarily hurt civilization so much as cause it to change drastically.

Watch out, I'm going to totally Godwin this, because it's appropriate.

When he intentionally destroyed all of those libraries and set culture and science back hundreds of years for no other reason than raging anti-intellectualism, Genghis Khan went past the 'ordinary douchebag' line to 'enemy of human civilization' putting him right up there with such charming fellows like Hitler.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

If anyone from Temujin's era were strong, they would have done the exact same thing. The Mongols were just better organized. That's how war was fought in those days.

And to be honest, the Persians had it coming. They publicly humiliated the Mongol messenger. Having your entire culture annihilated was considered proportional punishment at the time.

[Calibron]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about all the library burning. I was mostly thinking of how he caused the mixing of cultures and opened up the silk road.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Genghis Khan wasn't all bad. He set up a system of law that looked very nice compared to some of his neighbors and made it clear that it applied to rulers just as much as peasants. He moved Mongolian society towards a much more meritocratic system than the old aristocracy and he abolished torture, plus the old system of inter-tribal raiding. Of course, his descendants did reverse many of his changes (and the restriction against putting people through slow, elaborate, and painful deaths for the lulz was among the first to get abandoned), but he made enough of an impact that even generations later, the court of one of his descendants (Mongke Khan if I remember right) was a beacon of religous tolerance and sanity contrasted with neighboring nations and their inquisitions. Of course, I got most of my information from Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, so my sources have a definite pro-Mongol bias.

[Zinegata]

If anyone from Temujin's era were strong, they would have done the exact same thing. The Mongols were just better organized. That's how war was fought in those days.

And to be honest, the Persians had it coming. They publicly humiliated the Mongol messenger. Having your entire culture annihilated was considered proportional punishment at the time.

It actually wasn't so much a "humiliation" as "assasinated the messenger in cold blood".

Also, Genghis tended to treat his own army very well. Everyone in their way was pretty much fucked though.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

If anyone from Temujin's era were strong, they would have done the exact same thing. The Mongols were just better organized. That's how war was fought in those days.

And to be honest, the Persians had it coming. They publicly humiliated the Mongol messenger. Having your entire culture annihilated was considered proportional punishment at the time.

It actually wasn't so much a "humiliation" as "assasinated the messenger in cold blood".

Also, Genghis tended to treat his own army very well. Everyone in their way was pretty much fucked though.

Well, they shaved the ambassador's beards first. I'd call that humiliation.

And in the Mongol's defense, he gave you chance to join peacefully. He only extended the offer once, but he at least extended it.

And during the Pax Mongolica, trade actually improved. It was said a woman could ride naked all the way to china without being attacked during that time. That is most likely hyperbole, but Mongols tended to frown upon banditry and made a concentrated effort to end it in their lands.

[Zinegata]

Well, okay, let's put it at "Humilitated then murdered in cold blood" then

[JonSetanta]

Well, they shaved the ambassador's beards first. I'd call that humiliation.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT'S WORSE THAN ANAL RAPE WITH A SCALDING SPIKED IRON CLUB SUCH A TRAVESTY

[Prak]

It's a cultural thing, dumbass, like making a prisoner think you just smeared your menstrual blood over his face (Abu Gharaib)

[JonSetanta]

Um.. OK? Not like a little period on my face will kill me if I were a war prisoner in interrogation. Bitches need to learn to prioritize in times of danger.
Orthodoxy sucks balls. Hard. All the time.

[Prak]

it's about cultural taboos, and showing a prisoner you're in complete control by forcing them to commit a cultural taboo, or denying them the ability to act in accordance with their cultural mores. It's about psychological warfare.

[Cynic]

I'd be horrified at the UN there, but when they make good decisions nobody listens, so really this should be no different, right? I mean, have they ever actually done anything?

I had an international commerce lawyer who worked at the U.N. explain it to me once.

THere is a significant amount of work done at the U.N. But it is almost always seen better in the long run.

You go committees, sub committees, U.N. preparotory talks, then you have to lobby the different countries for votes. This then turns into debate within each of the countries. So by the time a law is ready to be passed, it goes through it can take, sometimes, up to 10 years to actually bring it up to the U.N. General assembly for work.

As Frank mentioned, a lot of aid work is done by the U.N. They are also good at facilitation of aid work in specific countries. WHat I mean is, WWF might start the issue of conservation of the manatee and while they will go forth and do their own work on this. They also lobby and help define propositions and bills for public/private sector attempts at saving the manatee.

[mean_liar]

Okay, so there have been several people talking about how his reputation was mostly exaggerated by his enemies and that he wasn't really any worse or better than his contemporaries.

Is that true or is it just apologetics?

My read on it is that his actions were considered especially barbaric because his most famous actions were:

1. The execution of wealthy nobles with explicit governmental duties who formed a bloc of power that made or broke princes. At the same time, they had a tendency to promote and support idiots that didn't inquire into their affairs too closely. He replaced them with self-chosen functionaries.

2. Expelling foreign merchants from most of his territory.

3. Instituting harsh laws and holding the wealthy to them.

4. When the Ottomans claimed Vlad's territory, the Pope called a Crusade and no one came. Pretty much EVERYONE ELSE wanted to just forget the whole thing and hand it over. The Ottomans asked a token from Vlad to show his loyalty. Vlad killed the messengers and stopped the immediate Ottoman reprisal, which sparked the Ottomans to send out a massive army that, while unable to defeat Vlad, did manage to conquer Bosnia(!). But his little fiefdom was fine. Meanwhile, his liege, the King of Hungary had been taking cash from the Pope to fight the Ottomans and then spending the money on... whatever. Not fighting, anyway, so when Bosnia fell and Vlad had no support from anyone the King looked like a tremendous asshole. So the King had Vlad thrown in prison for seven (?) years and in the meantime spent a lot of effort to make Vlad out to be a murderous asshole and justify the King's inaction as something other than fear of an Ottoman asskicking.

Now, Vlad was a murderous asshole. He really did kill a shitload of civilians. However, one can effectively argue that any effective military commander of the era was a murderous asshole. Vlad's bigger crime was showing his popular liege up as a thief and coward. Something to keep in mind was that when Vlad was winning wars against the Ottomans, all of Christiandom was singing (literally) his praises; once he was imprisoned, he was a terrible torturous madman.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_tepes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe (Wallachian campaign)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus