Nice reblog you have here comrade, let’s see what I can answer to that.
I mean, I don’t know why I’m surprised to see impassioned historical Dracula apologism
“Historical Dracula” starting off badly I’m afraid. There’s no Țepeș “apologism” here. What he did was brutal, immoral, and quite frankly terrifying.
Why he did it, however? To protect his country, his people, and, as much as his sense of justice was very strict, cleanse his piece of land from any crimes. When did he do it? 600 years ago. I’m afraid that the standards were different and that at the times you had many more rulers who did awful things for worsts reasons than he had.
On the other hand. The series of battles that featured the most famous round of impalements was part of a loooooong run of intra-Tepes dynastic strife that, yes, was heavily driven by the royal and imperial neighbors coming in and putting in a new voivode periodically in hopes of securing their local advantage.
Indeed, part of his actions happened because it was heavily driven by the royal and imperial neighbors coming in and putting in a new voivode periodically in hopes of securing their local advantage. Glad we can agree on that.
Also: “intra-Tepes dynastic” Țepeș isn’t a dynasty. It’s a nickname given to one singular person.
In a pattern of Large Rude Country Behavior that has not changed from that day to this.
I’m glad to announce to you that impaling people is quite hated nowadays even if the Ottoman Empire kept this going until the 19th century.
Vlad’s own first attempt at the…throne, as it were, had been backed by the same sort of Ottoman army, going in to overthrow his cousin Vladislav, who’d been installed by John Hunyadi of Hungary
Yes, he was 17 and the Ottoman Empire sent him to get the throne of Wallachia, hoping they could have a puppet here who will accept all their demands instead of having someone they don’t know from Hungary who would’ve probably caused them more issues. Quite understandable.
Vlad II was Dracul, Vlad III is Drăculea (Dracula).
He made himself very unpopular with the boyars during his rule through high-handed attempts to centralize power in himself.
The boyars didn’t need to be trying to betray Wallachia to dislike a pushy ruler.
The boyards hated him because they were corrupt and wanted a voivode easy to manipulate to keep being as wealthy as they were. If the previous voivode wasn’t laxist enough, they killed him to put another one on top. Of course, they would hate someone who refused to do commerce with the Ottoman Empire and wasn’t into Saxons walking in his land.
Other rulers gossiped about him to the Pope.
And he was quite liked by him!!
Indeed, Vlad was the only one who accepted to start crusades again and the pope saw him as a defender of Christianity, I am not a believer myself but this kind of trust is pretty incredible to receive from the Pope I’d say.
On the basis that that’s a lot of gratuitous cruelty and sounds like something someone would make up.
I’m also glad to tell you that most of his stories of gratuitous cruelty are not only something someone would make up, but also actually made up.
Vlad III Dracula got woodcuts, and was one of the first famous tyrants to be immortalized in print.
Vlad was of the first famous tyrants to be immortalized in print because once the printing machine got invented, they needed to profit off it. What sells better than stories of a cruel, tyrannic, monster of a ruler who disliked the Saxons?
but it was hardly a lovely clean motherland-versus-invaders scenario, and the thing he mostly fought for was himself.
Let me reassure you, no one said that it was a lovely clean motherland-versus-invaders scenario. He mostly fought not for himself, not for all the people, but for the ones that weren’t corrupt and to keep his country alive.
there’s no particular reason to think the same of Vlad ‘The Monk’ IV. If anything he had a better record there than Vlad II or III.
What is Vlad the Monk doing in all this? They never fought.
The Ottomans abandoned Radu too, iirc
Yes. Because Radu was nothing to them than another puppet who could be at the head of Wallachia and obey them. Aside from that, he wasn’t much to them. Vlad understood it, that’s why he left and fought against them.
It does, but you started the subject so here I am, talking about it. Plus you need to understand them to understand Vlad’s life and actions.
Politics are horrible and the number of people killed in the Tepes crown-snatching game would be horrible even if it hadn’t been a lot of imperial maneuvering to procure suzerainty and secure borders, and even without thousands of them being impaled to make a point.
Excuse you? The Tepes crown-snatching game? It was all but a game, it was a fight to keep a country free from corruption and invaders.
And yes, it is horrible. But necessary. What else could he have done? Sat here like a good dog in a leash the Ottoman Empire grabbed? Closing his eyes on the Boyards corruptions and accepting traitors in his land?
Yes, he could’ve done that. But It wouldn’t be any better. I’d take a Vlad who fought furiously because he cared about his country and his people than a puppet.
Hope you learned from this. Don’t hesitate if you have questions comrade.
izzy806
jacobvanloon
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
origamiaround
blakekathryn
pixelskylines
kianamaiart
