Vlad is actually a Romanian National Hero

[unseen4ce]

He had a small land that was surrounded by a much stronger turkish force, his people and himself had suffered at the hands of these people. He was actually in bondage as a child to the turks. The turks were nortorious for operating a barbaric slave trade.

He devised a plan where he would protect his Nation from invasion by doing small raids and mounting the corpses as a sign to other attempts.

This is a very breif summary, but he was actually a great man who protected his people in an extremely dire situation.

[icekingdom]

I just want to respond to 2 things that have been said. If you are willing to do ANYTHING to protect your family does that make you evil that is actually good debate. I would say you truely become evil if you act on it in the end. If someone hurt my daughter or son even the most horrible way possible, killing them understandable. Skinning them alive, torturing them yes that is evil. Evil acts do offen inspire evil acts that doesn't make them less evil.

Also men displayed impailed is there for no other reason except to envoke terror unless your an extream sadist and politics does not end at your border. So hero or no he was a terrorist it does not matter that he was the leader.

Other can talk about who he did these things so did he do this to women and children most thing I have seem say yes. If not does that make him not evil no, maybe less evil. Did he only do it to soldier or merchants and there familys. I don't know but really it is a matter of scale.

If you can tell me that he slaughtered enemy soldiers and criminals who broke his laws after that had beem created and notified and not entire familys maybe then he is still evil but not too much more so then a lot of world leader threw out history and even today. That is not the story and even the most pro Vlad things I have seen tell.


terrorist

noun
A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


terrorism
noun:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

[Gargamel]

icekingdom님이 먼저 게시:

I just want to respond to 2 things that have been said. If you are willing to do ANYTHING to protect your family does that make you evil that is actually good debate. I would say you truely become evil if you act on it in the end. If someone hurt my daughter or son even the most horrible way possible, killing them understandable. Skinning them alive, torturing them yes that is evil. Evil acts do offen inspire evil acts that doesn't make them less evil.

Also men displayed impailed is there for no other reason except to envoke terror unless your an extream sadist and politics does not end at your border. So hero or no he was a terrorist it does not matter that he was the leader.

Other can talk about who he did these things so did he do this to women and children most thing I have seem say yes. If not does that make him not evil no, maybe less evil. Did he only do it to soldier or merchants and there familys. I don't know but really it is a matter of scale.

If you can tell me that he slaughtered enemy soldiers and criminals who broke his laws after that had beem created and notified and not entire familys maybe then he is still evil but not too much more so then a lot of world leader threw out history and even today. That is not the story and even the most pro Vlad things I have seen tell.


terrorist

noun
A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims


terrorism
noun:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

Good post. I have to say I do agree. I must be evil then. Because if someone tortured my family I most certainly would make them suffer for a very long time given the opportunity. But never would hurt anyone for any other reason. As I am not a violent, but somewhat believe in An Eye for an Eye. And then some.

[Ragnarök]

Something, something, something...

"What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

Something, something, something....

Quote of some guy who's known for saying some things about some stuff.

[Relapse]

First of all, Vlad wasn't a hero, he was a terrorist at best. He didn't try to save his people, he was trying to save his throne. He brutally killed unarmed civilians (women and children), his own people and he did few good ambushes. That's all about your hero. A desperate monarch trying to sacrifice for both of his people and Turkish civilians for his throne. It is pathetic, isn't it?

Vlad III's army got impaled at the end, and their heads taken as a trophy by their Ottoman masters. Also, Vlad III is decapitated and his head sent to Constantinople.

Ottomans just wanted to make Wallachia their vassal, because they wanted to make a buffer zone between other European powers.

Also, policies of Ottomans were much more tolerant compared to other nations, this is a true fact. As long as Dhimmi (non-muslim people) pay their jizya (non-muslim tax), they would be fine. Ottomans will take one of your sons to the army as a Janissary, if you have more than one male kids. Oar slaves and other slaves were mainly war prisoners.

I made a post earlier, but it was a little racist. I mean "Romani" means ♥♥♥♥♥ (or lowlife) in both of Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic.

[stephenrozzi]

Put aside the childish comments people here are making & this is a pretty interesting debate. The sad fact is (I've watched several documentaries & read on the history of ol' Vlad) he WAS insane probably due to his childhood. he was also a patriot who loved ruling his people. It is a fact that while he did many things to help his people he was also extremely cruel. That cruelty extended to the folks he was protecting as well as outside enemies. I'm just giving large brush strokes to this but Vlad's history is well documented & easily found.

If anyone really wants to know the true history behind this insane hero start with Wikipedia & Crime Library then dig into thier sources. Also, keep in mind that Vlad was highly educated, charismatic & a warrior. He was also cruel & twisted.

[unseen4ce]

@IceKingdom
If someone hurt your son and daughter, killing them would not actually change what happened. I am not saying I don't sympathize with such a measure, perhaps it is justified in preventing it from happening again.

But what Vlad did prevented violence against his people, it was a rational action that had a purpose. He created an image by placing the corpses along the border ...this had a purpose. I don't care whether it was just soldiers, it was saying to the ottomans ..."don't even think about it".
I put my family first, I do not sympathize with my enemy, if it is him or me, I will fight for the survival of my kin. This too is rational. I don't care for points like 'oh, those poor ottomans, why didn't Vlad think about how they felt" ...are you kidding me. You may as well just invite them in and forget about it.
No-one else did anything.

[Erebus]

Relapse님이 먼저 게시:

First of all, Vlad wasn't a hero, he was a terrorist at best. He didn't try to save his people, he was trying to save his throne. He brutally killed unarmed civilians (women and children), his own people and he did few good ambushes. That's all about your hero. A desperate monarch trying to sacrifice for both of his people and Turkish civilians for his throne. It is pathetic, isn't it?

Vlad III's army got impaled at the end, and their heads taken as a trophy by their Ottoman masters. Also, Vlad III is decapitated and his head sent to Constantinople.

Ottomans just wanted to make Wallachia their vassal, because they wanted to make a buffer zone between other European powers.

Also, policies of Ottomans were much more tolerant compared to other nations, this is a true fact. As long as Dhimmi (non-muslim people) pay their jizya (non-muslim tax), they would be fine. Ottomans will take one of your sons to the army as a Janissary, if you have more than one male kids. Oar slaves and other slaves were mainly war prisoners.

I made a post earlier, but it was a little racist. I mean "Romani" means ♥♥♥♥♥ (or lowlife) in both of Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic.

I can't see why anyone would ever want to avoid a system where they are taxed for not belonging to a religion, where they are treated as second class citizens at best if not part of said religion, and where their children are occasionally conscripted into the military to be indoctrinated. /sarcasm

[nojairk748]

Relapse님이 먼저 게시:

First of all, Vlad wasn't a hero, he was a terrorist at best. He didn't try to save his people, he was trying to save his throne. He brutally killed unarmed civilians (women and children), his own people and he did few good ambushes. That's all about your hero. A desperate monarch trying to sacrifice for both of his people and Turkish civilians for his throne. It is pathetic, isn't it?

How is killing those that have been tormenting your nation, and many others, make you a "terrorist at best"? Remember, at this point in history, the Turks were a very brutal, aggressive, war-hungry and violent people. Literally, they raided Romania to the point that much of Romania was completely broken.

Remember, he was given the throne to a broken nation after he helped lead a (undeniably heroic) campaign to weaken the constantly attacking Turk forces, and was put in a horrible prison for 4 years. Likely, as an officer-level prisoner of war, in the prison of such a violent people, I can only imagine how horrible it was for him.

And yes, you can argue that this made him insane - his hatred for the Turks became so severe that, when he ascended to the throne, he became Vlad the Impaler. But no - he mostly did it to the Turks, and however you slice it, the Turks were the villains at this point in history.

Vlad was no hero as a man, but he was, at least from his perspective, fighting the worst of humanity, and frankly, I do think that makes him a hero. It's no different than if he faught the Nazis.

[nojairk748]

Marquis de l'Hamy님이 먼저 게시:

Calling him a Hero is perhaps a bit strong, but it is equally strong to call him a Villian

And here we are - the best possible self-contained sentence to describe him.

[Relapse]

Erebus님이 먼저 게시:

Relapse님이 먼저 게시:

First of all, Vlad wasn't a hero, he was a terrorist at best. He didn't try to save his people, he was trying to save his throne. He brutally killed unarmed civilians (women and children), his own people and he did few good ambushes. That's all about your hero. A desperate monarch trying to sacrifice for both of his people and Turkish civilians for his throne. It is pathetic, isn't it?

Vlad III's army got impaled at the end, and their heads taken as a trophy by their Ottoman masters. Also, Vlad III is decapitated and his head sent to Constantinople.

Ottomans just wanted to make Wallachia their vassal, because they wanted to make a buffer zone between other European powers.

Also, policies of Ottomans were much more tolerant compared to other nations, this is a true fact. As long as Dhimmi (non-muslim people) pay their jizya (non-muslim tax), they would be fine. Ottomans will take one of your sons to the army as a Janissary, if you have more than one male kids. Oar slaves and other slaves were mainly war prisoners.

I made a post earlier, but it was a little racist. I mean "Romani" means ♥♥♥♥♥ (or lowlife) in both of Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic.

I can't see why anyone would ever want to avoid a system where they are taxed for not belonging to a religion, where they are treated as second class citizens at best if not part of said religion, and where their children are occasionally conscripted into the military to be indoctrinated. /sarcasm

Yeah, getting into a desperate war against Ottomans was a better idea! He know he wasn't going to win that war, but his hate against Turks blinded him, and he dragged many innocent people into a war against Ottomans. It was an act of desperation. Did he really think he was going to beat Ottomans at the end?

nojairk748님이 먼저 게시:

many others, make you a "terrorist at best"? Remember, at this point in history, the Turks were a very brutal, aggressive, war-hungry and violent people. Literally, they raided Romania to the point that much of Romania was completely broken.

Turks were brutal,agressive, war-hungry and violent people? Stop fooling yourself, Europe was in a great turmoil in the Rise of the Ottomans period and Europeans were just agressive as Turks, if not more. Did Europe ever see a peace period? Seriously stop spreading your biased opinion.

nojairk748님이 먼저 게시:

Vlad was no hero as a man, but he was, at least from his perspective, fighting the worst of humanity, and frankly, I do think that makes him a hero. It's no different than if he faught the Nazis.

Members of Al Qaeda should see themselves as heroes. /Sarcasm

Al Qaeda successfully ambushes patrols of foreign powers, they are leading militants to some successful raids etc. They use some psychological warfare tactics against others. They are killing innocent people. They do all of those because they have some gains in them, and some brainwashed people see them as heroes. Yeah, Vlad III is a definetely a terrorist.

Vlad was a cruel monarch, he even tortured/abused/killed his own people, not just Turks. I am glad he got what he deserved at the end.

Oh, there are so many similiarities between Al Qaeda, <instert any terrorist group> and Vlad III Dracul. He was a terroist at best.

[unseen4ce]

@relapse

Yeah, getting into a desperate war against Ottomans was a better idea! He know he wasn't going to win that war, but his hate against Turks blinded him, and he dragged many innocent people into a war against Ottomans. It was an act of desperation. Did he really think he was going to beat Ottomans at the end?

This is one of the most idiotic remarks in this entire thread. "Getting into a desperate war", the reality is he was on the defense against a huge empire that was encroaching on his land. This is why he used the methods he did. It is almost not worth answering this remark as it is so out-of-touch with the points made in the rest of this thread. It is almost like you can't read. Seriously, it is that bad. It is ridiculous.

Turks were brutal,agressive, war-hungry and violent people? Stop fooling yourself, Europe was in a great turmoil in the Rise of the Ottomans period and Europeans were just agressive as Turks, if not more. Did Europe ever see a peace period? Seriously stop spreading your biased opinion.

Hey Vlad, dont bother defending your homeland from an encroaching army, Europe is aggressive too! There will be peace once you stop calling the ottomans mean names; just let them come and we can hold-hands and sing kumbaya. /sarcasm

We are really stretching the conventional definition of the term 'terrorist' in this thread. Almost any world leader, modern or historical, would meet this uncoventional definition.

But regardless, it is a pointless label. The real question is about defending your people and land from a huge army with limited resources.


...but hey, even though your enemy will stop at nothing, will practice every cruelty, you better make sure you don't hurt their feelings or make them-out to sound bad. That would be biased, a worse crime then the genocide and subjugation of your entire people. /sarcasm

[Erebus]

Relapse님이 먼저 게시:

Erebus님이 먼저 게시:

I can't see why anyone would ever want to avoid a system where they are taxed for not belonging to a religion, where they are treated as second class citizens at best if not part of said religion, and where their children are occasionally conscripted into the military to be indoctrinated. /sarcasm

Yeah, getting into a desperate war against Ottomans was a better idea! He know he wasn't going to win that war, but his hate against Turks blinded him, and he dragged many innocent people into a war against Ottomans. It was an act of desperation. Did he really think he was going to beat Ottomans at the end?

nojairk748님이 먼저 게시:

many others, make you a "terrorist at best"? Remember, at this point in history, the Turks were a very brutal, aggressive, war-hungry and violent people. Literally, they raided Romania to the point that much of Romania was completely broken.

Turks were brutal,agressive, war-hungry and violent people? Stop fooling yourself, Europe was in a great turmoil in the Rise of the Ottomans period and Europeans were just agressive as Turks, if not more. Did Europe ever see a peace period? Seriously stop spreading your biased opinion.

nojairk748님이 먼저 게시:

Vlad was no hero as a man, but he was, at least from his perspective, fighting the worst of humanity, and frankly, I do think that makes him a hero. It's no different than if he faught the Nazis.

Members of Al Qaeda should see themselves as heroes. /Sarcasm

Al Qaeda successfully ambushes patrols of foreign powers, they are leading militants to some successful raids etc. They use some psychological warfare tactics against others. They are killing innocent people. They do all of those because they have some gains in them, and some brainwashed people see them as heroes. Yeah, Vlad III is a definetely a terrorist.

Vlad was a cruel monarch, he even tortured/abused/killed his own people, not just Turks. I am glad he got what he deserved at the end.

Oh, there are so many similiarities between Al Qaeda, <instert any terrorist group> and Vlad III Dracul. He was a terroist at best.

Complains about biased opinions; waxes poetic about how muslim/turkish conquest in the medieval period wasn't "that bad". Obviously everyone should have just bowed down to be assimilated into a conquering nation that erased cultures, had just as horrific of punishments and tortures as anywhere else at the time, and treated non-muslims as 2nd class citizens best case scenario.

[Relapse]

unseen4ce님이 먼저 게시:

This is one of the most idiotic remarks in this entire thread. "Getting into a desperate war", the reality is he was on the defense against a huge empire that was encroaching on his land. This is why he used the methods he did. It is almost not worth answering this remark as it is so out-of-touch with the points made in the rest of this thread. It is almost like you can't read. Seriously, it is that bad. It is ridiculous.

Vlad's actions were idiotic. Yeah, good luck trying to defend Palestine against Israel. Exiled/asimilated Palestinians have a better chance of living.

Same goes for Wallachia. Did Vlad's actions change anything other than ruinous Wallachia? Ottomans didn't treat Wallachians equal to their other puppets. Read some historical documents about Romanians under Ottoman rule, then compare it to other subject nations of Ottomans.

unseen4ce님이 먼저 게시:

Turks were brutal,agressive, war-hungry and violent people? Stop fooling yourself, Europe was in a great turmoil in the Rise of the Ottomans period and Europeans were just agressive as Turks, if not more. Did Europe ever see a peace period? Seriously stop spreading your biased opinion.

Hey Vlad, dont bother defending your homeland from an encroaching army, Europe is aggressive too! There will be peace once you stop calling the ottomans mean names; just let them come and we can hold-hands and sing kumbaya. /sarcasm

Your whole paragraph doesn't make sense. Wallachians have nothing to do with a general comparison between Turks and Europeans.

unseen4ce님이 먼저 게시:

We are really stretching the conventional definition of the term 'terrorist' in this thread. Almost any world leader, modern or historical, would meet this uncoventional definition.

Vlad was a terrorist, get on with it.

unseen4ce님이 먼저 게시:

But regardless, it is a pointless label. The real question is about defending your people and land from a huge army with limited resources.

...but hey, even though your enemy will stop at nothing, will practice every cruelty, you better make sure you don't hurt their feelings or make them-out to sound bad. That would be biased, a worse crime then the genocide and subjugation of your entire people./sarcasm

Vlad didn't manage to defend "his" people, and he wasn't going to defend them either. His actions caused much deeper wounds. Search some threads about Romani people under Ottoman rule. Ottomans never treated them like their other subjects. Atleast asimilated "Romanians" had a better chance.

[Relapse]

Erebus님이 먼저 게시:

Complains about biased opinions; waxes poetic about how muslim/turkish conquest in the medieval period wasn't "that bad". Obviously everyone should have just bowed down to be assimilated into a conquering nation that erased cultures, had just as horrific of punishments and tortures as anywhere else at the time, and treated non-muslims as 2nd class citizens best case scenario.

If you have a chance to win, go for it. If you don't have a chance to win, then let it go or it is going to hurt you much more.

There is a small line between bravery and stupidity.

[Erebus]

Relapse님이 먼저 게시:

Erebus님이 먼저 게시:

Complains about biased opinions; waxes poetic about how muslim/turkish conquest in the medieval period wasn't "that bad". Obviously everyone should have just bowed down to be assimilated into a conquering nation that erased cultures, had just as horrific of punishments and tortures as anywhere else at the time, and treated non-muslims as 2nd class citizens best case scenario.

If you have a chance to win, go for it. If you don't have a chance to win, then let it go or it is going to hurt you much more.

Yeah I don't agree with this philosophy at all. Is survival really worth selling out on your beliefs, freedoms, and family?