Vlad Ţepeş, ~ ruler of Valachia, Medieval Romania

Hello Rum and welcome to Romania (are you RedRum by anychance ?)

About something you read and posted here which bothers me - anyone tried to picture the logistical problems one would face when having to impale 30.000 persons at the same time ?

Hi RumBucuresti and welcome to the forum.

Regarding your question. In my opinion Vlad Tepes was a man of his time, when cruelty and mass executions were very common.

I don't think I have to start presenting the tortures that the Inquisition used to extract "testimonies" from its victims, the burning at the stake (which I fail to see how it was less horrible than the impalement) etc.

There were many rulers who used crruel methods of execution. In the France of Louis XI, the executions also included skinning alive, disembowment, braking the body in severa lparts etc, etc. Homosexuals were boiled in oil, thieves had their eyes poked out, noses cut.

Stephen the Great, the Moldavian prince who was sanctified some years ago, burned down Braila on 27 February 1470 and killed every single one of its citizens, including the children. Three years later, after defeating a an army made up of 13,000 Ottomans and 6,000 Wallachians (28 November 1473), he impaled all the 2,300 prisoners he took.

And let's not even start about Ivan the Terrible. For further details see the article "Cruzimea" lui Vlad Tepes - o exceptie? by Constantin Rezachevici in the May 2005 issue of Magazin Istoric

Barbaric tortures and executions were carried out in Western Europe even in the supposedly civilized 18th century, yet Vlad Tepes is the only sociopath around?

Most of the Saxon stories about his cruelty, especially the ones picturing him as a blood-thirsty tyrant, should be taken with a grain of salt. Vlad and the Saxon traders in southern Transylvania were at war for a long part of his second reign, due to Vlad's wish to protect his own traders. It is true he did not do it in an ellegant manner, but neither did the Saxons IIRC. If he was to impale 30,000 inhabitants of Sibiu/Hermannstadt there hardly would have been anyone left to write about it would it?

thank you for the warm welcome and all the replies so far gentlemen!

In the story of Vlad III it seems that enemy propaganda and sensationalism have blackened his name, more so than his historical peers/historical context would deserve.

Strangely the exact opposite happened with the English King Henry V, celebrated by Shakespeare and seen by many if not most as a "strong" King and yet guilty of executing prisoners of war, burnings, foreign invasions etc.

My last questions, if i may be so bold as to ask, are more general in scope.

Can anyone offer any reason (historical? religious? symbolic?) as to why this geographical area of europe seemed to favour impalement (if indeed they did?) as a form of execution/punishment/deterent?

was it used by them first? if so this leads me to ask, did impalement of enemy soldiers lead to it to be employed against the local populace or vise versa?
or did their invading enemies use it first?

My own guess regardless of first usage would be that it was chosen for 1 basic and obvious reason. Pain.

It must have been horrifically agonizing to die this way (compared to being beheaded for example) and in some cases it would have been a slow slow death (compared to being burnt at the stake for another example) and thus a "longer lesson" to anyone from the local population forced to watch.

Also faced with the overwhelmingly superior numbers of the invaders i can see impalement being a fearsome thing to even the most toughened invading soldier who might not be so scared of a normal death in battle or a swift dispatch after being captured......this does make me wonder why impalement wasn't more universally used though!

kindest regards, Rum

This post has been edited by RumBucuresti on August 12, 2005 04:08 pm

Ileana Căzan, Eugen Denize, Marile puteri şi spaţiul românesc în secolele XV-XVI, Capitolul II - Vlad Ţepeş între Ungaria şi Imperiul otoman

I favor the "longer lesson" argument, but in a different sense:

Impaling leaves behind a very visible "product", after the victim is dead, unlike burning for example. Those passing by see the victim's body for weeks. It's like the gibbet in this regard.

Was it really more common in south-east Europe, or is that just bad press?

i have no evidence to confirm or deny that at the moment, but i am looking.
its very differcult to find examples of Impalement in British history, especially as a form of execution though.

rightly or wrongly i have always considered impalement to be a form of "exotic" execution from southeastern europe and the middle/far east, thats just from popular fiction/movies as opposed to any kind of fact. Hopefully some of the guys here can offer some enlightenment.
kind regards, (not Red)Rum

Ironically,this impalling procedure was learn by Vlad Tepes from turks(unfortunately for they),when he stay at Istanbul.The method was used in south-east Europe by others too,but the master was Vlad.And yes,was used not just because Vlad have fun when watch peoples impaled,but as a very efective method of psychological war(against intern and against extern enemies).And was a totally succes.Mothers from Ottoman empire scare they disobedient kids with his name,and criminals elements almost totally disaper from the country.

It appears to have been a thracian method, mentioned by Herodotus. So its history is pretty impressive.

Discovery's "Legend Detectives" explored the legend of Dracula. I missed the first 20 minutes or so, though.
Blooper: Romania was invaded by nazis in WWII
They also used a psychic medium to scan the relevant areas - Poenari, Targoviste, Snagov.
I liked the conclusion though. Decent. If anyone missed it I can upload it.

take care

What was the conclusion?

Iama

OFF-TOPIC:

He was Vladislav I (Vlaicu-Voda from Davila’s play) and his wife Clara. But also by the same time Moldavia had a catholic voievode, Laţcu. In Moldavia the Catholic influence was stronger partly because of the previous existence of the Cuman’s bishopric, in the XIIIth century. Also in the second half of the XIVth century the catholic church and its efforts towards the Romanian countries was supported by Louis the Great, king of Hungary (and since 1370’s also king of Poland), during whose reign there were wars with but also peace and alliance efforts towards the Romanian feudal states. Quite fascinating and less known the history of Walachia and Moldavia until Mircea the Great and Alexander the Good.

This post has been edited by Agarici on May 10, 2006 04:25 pm

Wasn't he rather Mircea the Elder?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 10, 2006 04:34 pm

Wasn't he rather Mircea the Elder?

Gen. Dénes

OFF-TOPIC:

Well, it could work both ways. Basically, the formula I've suggested was no communist invention, but was used by historians like Xenopol and Iorga, long time before the communist era. Also from what I know Mircea was called “the Great” in some of his contemporary (immediately posterior) historical sources. Now I agree that “cultul Câmaciului” (approximate translation, the personality cult or the cult of “the Leader”, during Ceausescu’s regime) might have compromise it. The propaganda wanted to associate Nicu with Mircea (preferred by some reason among other historical figures), but would not dare to suggest/allow “Ceausescu the Elder” as a possible name for the ruler. In the end, I guess, it's up to us if we want to stumble over the recent past every time…

By the way, different nicknames were used by the medieval Romanian historiography (chronicles) because they did not have the habit to number the monarchs.

Concerning the nicknames and their signification... The "Elder" term has nothing to do with the age. It was the translation of the slavonic word "starîi" that means old and ancient in the same time... This word was used in order to make the difference between the "ancient" Mircea - the Elder and the "new" Mircea (the voievode Mircea Ciobanul).