Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- Heroes Of The Net
- →
- HotN Thinking Outloud
- →
- Debate Forum
- →
- Vlad the Impaler
| Vlad the Impaler | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 30 2009, 02:08 PM (84 Views) | |
| Rinny | Dec 30 2009, 02:08 PM Post #1 |
Lost in the dark scary part of my mind
|
So, the whole family had gathered around to watch Eddie Izzard. He did his whole 'babies on spikes' thing, with sound effects, which we found quite amusing, despite the gruesome undertones to the comedic skit. A few days afterward, someone brought it up and the question was then raised, who impaled babies? I'd always believed that to be Vlad Tepes, which I stated. My mom wasn't so convinced, so we ended up doing what we always do: find the information online. After going through many sites, and becoming more and more fascinated, albeit horrified, by this man's conquests, we discovered a core that ran the exact same through all of them: Vlad Tepes, (tepes meaning 'spike' and not used during his actual reign, for at that time he was indeed called Vlad Dracula, Dracul meaning dragon or devil and the added 'a' meaning son of) was a noble who was kidnapped and held hostage when he was fourteen, along with his brother. The Turks held him for four years, during which time very little is known, though it is speculated that he was tortured and sexually abused. Upon his release he returned home to discover that both his father and older brother had been slain by boyars. This is to give some background and perhaps lay some reasoning for his actions. He was responsible for over 50,000 deaths by impalement alone, including every man, woman, and child in the city of Tirgoviste, where he ruled. He also boiled people alive, skinned them, mutilated them, exposed them to harsh elements and wild animals, and ather such cruelties. The impalement process is said to have been perfected by Tepes, who apparently could keep his victims alive for days with a stick shoved through them rectally, or in women's cases, vaginally. So here's my question: Is Vlad Tepes, Vlad Dracula, Vlad the Impaler, an evil man? Romanians don't think so. From all the sources I've read, he's a good guy to them. He took from the poor and gave to the rich. He defended his kingdom from invaders by any means. To them, he was Robin Hood with spikes. What's a little torture between heroes, right? Do his intentions outweigh his deeds? Personally, I find him to be an evil man. Is this my American upbringing talking? Am I being loose with the terms 'wrong' and 'evil'? I just can't see making a hero out of someone like that. Comments, opinions, maybe a comparison to someone else you believe to be evil or unjustly prosecuted? |
  | |
 |
 
|
| PainWhisper | Dec 30 2009, 02:35 PM Post #2 |
Legend
|
First thing that came to my mind was Hitler. All he wanted to do was beat the jews in an economical war so that Germany could become rich. Holocaust, impalement, they were means to get what they wanted. Of course, I see none of them as heroes - At most, I see Hitler as an honoured man for standing up for what he believed in. As for Vlad, I believe he must have had some sort of psychological pathology, or something along those lines. He was obviously traumatized, and even though it doesn't serve as an excuse, you can't actually say he's "evil" without knowing if he was or wasn't insane. EDIT: But no, it isn't you being american. I consider Vlad to be an evil man too, regardless of his mental state. Edited by PainWhisper, Dec 30 2009, 02:35 PM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Nubi | Dec 31 2009, 04:56 AM Post #3 |
 
|
Sounds like a man that was possibly twisted by evil doings. Good people, especially early on in their life, can become 'evil' and twisted. IMHO, Vlad doesn't sound like such a good guy. I don't think good deeds cancel out evil deeds. In that case I think I'll go rob the local bank tomorrow, brutally murder everyone inside, and then donate some of the stolen money to a charity.
I believe you typed that backwards. |
|
| |
|
|
| PainWhisper | Dec 31 2009, 03:31 PM Post #4 |
|
Legend
|
However, Nubi (and correct me if I'm wrong), don't Christians believe that, if you regret a sin and confess it, you'll be "cleaned"? Let's say, I'm a fourty year old woman and just had sex with my married neighbour. If I go tell a priest about it, and regret the sex part, won't it be as if it didn't happen? Won't I go to heaven anyway? In this case, a "good deed" canceled out the evil deed, no? I'm asking because I'm not so sure if I'm saying a load of bull, or if it's actually any accurate. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Rinny | Dec 31 2009, 04:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Lost in the dark scary part of my mind
|
Hehe. Yeah, I did.... And PW, the basic rule for that is based more in Catholicism than other branches of Christianity. Say enough 'Hail Mary's' and all is forgiven. *shrug* And actually, that may indeed have been Tepes mindset. Meting out punishment to disloyal boyars (nobles) and killing 'barbarians'. (Most of the people he killed were Saxons, who were considered barbaric and less than human at the time. He also killed heathen Turks.) Tepes father, Vlad Dragul II, was part of a secret society known as the Order of the Dragon, a christian group dedicated to the eradication of the Turks for their pagan ways. Seeing as Tepes grew up in this environment, it is logical to assume that he did believe his good deeds outweighed the bad in the long run, being that Catholicism was the predominant sect of christianity. But there's really no way to know, is there? On the other hand, are there enough good deeds to cancel out the deaths of anywhere from 50,000 to 75,000 deaths, most through inhuman torture? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| PainWhisper | Dec 31 2009, 06:45 PM Post #6 |
|
Legend
|
And even if he did kill them for being pagan, did he have to torture them? I mean, he could have made it quick and pain-free, but he kept them alive for three days, impaled. The only point in that is to terrorize the population, but still... |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Nubi | Jan 1 2010, 12:27 AM Post #7 |
|
Actually PW, that is the way many "Christians" think. But someone really dedicating themselves to the Christian path will toss away their sins as much as humanly possible. Basically, you do your VERY best to avoid temptation and sin, being more morale and godlike in the sense of goodness. However, some Christians find it enough to commit the sin, ask for forgiveness, and go about their day. I cannot say if this has the same effect as tossing away sins almost entirely, because I cannot speak for God. So... who knows? But I don't agree with the concept of sinning and asking for forgiveness on a daily basis. Really, you should only need to ask forgiveness once, for past and future sins. [/rant] Meh. I dunno anymore. Either way, Vlad sounds like an evil bastard, imho. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Reliability | Jan 1 2010, 02:12 AM Post #8 |
What were you doing by the watermelons?
|
He isn't evil. Obviously he killed and tortured a lot of people which is awful no matter where you are. But at the time, there was still a lot of conflict in Europe. If a ruler didn't keep a powerful grip on his (or her, but probably not) territory, it would be taken over. Vlad was attempting to stop the spread of the Ottoman empire into his territory, an empire that was generally hated by Europeans (mostly because of religion, but I wont get into that). If you make a reputation for yourself that you'll basically murder everyone you defeat, it's less likely that people will attack you. What he did was bloody and inhuman, but that's by our standards today. Back then, his actions would have been more accepted and ultimately seen as the best move to try and ensure his people a future without Ottoman rule. His success is a different story. At least his intentions were... noble. |
 ---  ---  ---
---
| |
|
|
|
| Nubi | Jan 1 2010, 03:41 AM Post #9 |
|
In that case I'd call it tactical brutality. Even by today's standards, if we wanted to frighten our enemies we could always impale any prisoners of war we have ^.^ But we don't impale them, because of the inhumanity of it. At least, I don't think we do. But the women and children? Were they part of the opposition as well, or just the family of the opposition? I suppose my upbringing in the modern world makes it hard for me to view his actions as anything other than evil, despite his intentions. But, what about Truman? I guess he must be an evil bastard too. If I remember correctly, which I probably don't, he was the one who dropped the two atomic bombs on major Japanese cities to 'frighten opposition,' if you will. In many respects, it was a reasonable decision, but a lot of innocent lives were lost. In my opinion, Truman isn't evil. How does that work exactly? I believe I have successfully confuzzled myself. So much to consider in these kinds of situations. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Schneeraubtier | Jan 1 2010, 10:39 AM Post #10 |
|
I dun think Vlad was evil. He kept his country safe from invaders and mostly tortured foreign prisoners and criminals The act of crucifixion is even worse in contrast I think just do to its sheer simplicity and effectiveness. Course my great grandparents were immigrants from Hungary so I can't help but cheer for the ruler of one of my ancestral homes. I also read in a non Dracula based book that Vlad was one of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. Also, that he is half alien. He's also still alive. Go figure that. Thinking of Hitler just makes me wonder how long it will take Germany to start WW3 xD I can only speak for the Lutheran faith (a denomination of Christianity) but we do not believe in confession. Jesus died for our sins already, they were paid for and we owe God no debt for sins. As long as we accept Jesus we are off to heaven. Unless you're a violent criminal of course >_> |
 ^^^ Dun trust this I ish not on xfire all the time. Damn dial-up... If you are reading this then you have died. Congratulations. This message is only visible to dead people. Of course since you're reading this you are dead to the world as you are not in public. Therefore, GTFO!!! | |
|
|
|
| Rinny | Jan 1 2010, 11:48 AM Post #11 |
|
Lost in the dark scary part of my mind
|
Actually, those crimes were considered repulsive even then. More than one ambassador turned back without proposing alliances or war because of the atrocities they encountered. So in a sense, he was protecting his country, but accounts say he also took a perverse pleasure in what he did, and would actually take his meals amidst the 20,000 men women and children he killed. On the other hand, he drastically reduced crime within the walls of his city by stating that anyone caught committing a crime would be put on a stake. To prove his point, he set a gold cup in the center of the city, within easy reach of everyone and not watched. During his entire reign, the cup was never touched. So the terror worked. Constantinople still sent an army into Hungary, but it did deter the general so that he handed the campaign over to others because he himself could not handle the gruesomeness. *shrug* To me, he sort of reminds me of Countess Bathory. I've no clue why. There's no particular connection to them, other than blood. But I still link them. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
1:04 AM Mar 11
