The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

So, I was watching the history channel where they were showing the history of Dracula. Aside from the whole vampirism ideal that the name holds to the legends and folk tales, it is said he is one of the most blood thirsty rulers to ever exist (aside from Bathory, which I think takes the cake and epitomises (sp?) the word Vampire) more so than the Dracula Vampire character made up by Bram Stroker.
People in Romania idolize this character of Vlad The Impaler to be a hero who saved their empire from being conquered, while others consider him a murderous monster...

What is your opinion? I know we've talked about him before here in the forums, but I dont recall discussing his actions and so on and so forth.

DB

well granted he was a blood thirsty ruler,and his methods were cruel and barbaric,but in his time that is how things got done.he saved his country from being taken over by the turks,and i think that is very heroic.by todays standards he would be branded a psycho,but in my opinion he was an honorable man,who did what he had to do to gain the peoples respect and faith in his cause,in romania he is a national hero,i have the upmost respect for him,but thats just my opinion

do u think its right that he enjoyed impaling these people as well?
they would stay alive for a while before bleeding to death, while he stood and watched and felt pleasure in doing so..

how is that something to be considered heroic?


aside from that, from my historical studies, i know things were done pretty barbaric..but his methods were more cruel and unnecessary than were the others from other countries.

Well, Vlad did a lot of good for Romania, he was brave and protected his kingdom, which is why they gave him the name Dragul, meaning dragonheart.

I believe him to be a good man at first, but then became to happy with power and became over confident. He was a bloodthirsty man, who liked to show examples, but the sick part was that he liked to eat lunch while his guards impaled his victims or nailed their hats to their heads.

I am not defending him and his actions, I think his methods of punishing were outrageous and unnessecary. I do not believe in killing as a solution.

The "nickname" The Impaler followed him when people found out his methods.

Elisabeth was sick and killed for her own vanity, she was a psycho, Vlad just got carried away. That is at least my thoughts on it.

his actions may have been cruel but the turks were just as bad,and he is a hero!!

dont get your panties in a bunch darling, im just sparking discussion.

i just got done watching this show also it was ok especially about elizabeth bathory

but i think vlad was a hero and saved the country from being religiously taken over

and his impalements are something that he knew would instill fear in those who were trying to conquer

On a side note, I think that there are many people so enamored with the idea of him as inspiration for Bram Stokers novel, or more recently, those who are enamored with Gary Oldman's portrayal of Vlad Dracula, that they have a hard time looking at history with anything but the rosiest of rose colored glasses.

They defend a man who was likely a sociopath and a sadist because he is the man that represents the myth they so desparately want to believe in.

Sometimes you have to be a murderous monster in order to keep your territory safe . . .

aside from the fact that it brings tourism to their country and gives them SOME sense of historical myth....i agree FelixFelix.

Well seeing as though 1 in 100 are estimated to be clinical psychopaths by definition, the odds are pretty good. Hero? to his country, to me? not really.

Oh yea and, however brutal his methods, he scared the shit out of those Turkish invaders. Possibly saving a LOT more lives. They deserved it, that is war.

rofl...Sevenn you know me too well..lmao. Dudette that was H-Larious!!!

does it matter how cruel your ways are if you get done what needs to be done?
I don't think so, so a hero he is. and if it does matter every christian is a psychpat cause the church did the same things in the 11th century with the crusades

Doing what needs to be done actually proves even further someone is NOT a "hero" doing what needs to be done (especially in his case) was what had to be done. And doing what has to be done, doesnt really make you a hero. It is called doing your job. We don't really know what the outcome would/would not have been had he done otherwise, though it probably would have been bad for the country. Firefighters do their jobs, and do not wish to be called heroes.

here on our battle field there are great generals that make a battle somthimes and they don't wan't to be called hero's (not al of them) but that doesn't change the fact they are. and firefighters are hero's as wel.

Iv been fascinated by vlad sence third grade and i beleive that he felt what was right for himself and his people thought that too but the outsiders thought he was barbaric which i think he was sadist that was protecting his country at the same time... its in the eye of whom ever sees him. or at least what he did....... he very violent though.... lol.

I would say that hes more a physcopath than hero, but still once your like that Id say the message gets across that you shouldnt mess with the man, as the impaaling and other cruel torures would show to the public

"I don't think so, so a hero he is"

"so" he is a hero sounds like you are saying that he is just by default (which is not a reason). That makes little sense. Yes firefighters are heroes. But not everyone who makes an example of some Turkish soldiers because its his job, is. It comes down to opinion I suppose. He is a bit overglorified, for many reasons, he certainly does not deserve more credit than anyone else whop does their job though. And I am SURE he did not do it alone, but I don't know those men's names, because apparently they were not important enough.

who*

wel no man stands alone indeed. and it is true that everyone has an opinion over hero's but there are many diferent hero's. one who saves lives can be caled one bute one who takes lives can be so as wel. I call great warriors hero's and I find that for what they achieved not for their means. and I said before the great crusades of the church where not much better and many people see the Templar's hero's so

yea, they ended a lot of innocent lives. What happened to the Egyptians alone was enough to ruin a reputation, but that is another issue entirely.

To me, if Vlad Dracula was a decent and noble ruler to his own people, then we could say that his actions against the Turks and the Hungarians were heroic defenses of his people.

However, since he was just as brutal to his own people as he was to his enemies, it is more likely that his actions against invaders was not to protect his people but to protect what he saw as his property, his dominion. That doesn't make him heroic, it makes him ruthless and selfish and predatory.

Great point. Let the reasons be what defines a hero. And if it is true (and likely is) that he did it not for heroic reasons (to protect his people), he is not a hero. We will never be 100% sure of his motivations. But we do know he was somewhat of a tyrant.

you are correct indeed. And Miss to our discussion I'd say we both have our points and every man or woman must decide to himself who he seems a here if it is Jezus or even Hitler.

I do agree, both sides have valid points :) and the real jurors should be the Romanian people, who despite all the bad...seem to see mostly the good.

yes indeed
I am glad we both agree on this
*taking a noble bow for you*

History tends to be written by the victors. The truth is often lost or clouded by the blowing sands of time. Vlad was no more cruel or vicious than the Turks he fought againest. Everyone should read a bit about how his enemies conducted themselves before judjgng Dracula too harshly.

Actually, the real jurors should be the Romanian people of his age. They seemed to be pretty clear in their opinion that he was a frightening tyrant. We're all familiar with his brutal punishment techniques. In addition to his famed used of impalement:

"he often ordered people to be skinned, boiled, decapitated, blinded, strangled, hanged, burned, roasted, hacked, nailed, buried alive, stabbed, etc. He also liked to cut off noses, ears, sexual organs and limbs."

He hated the weak and attempted to kill all the poor of Wallachia when he invited them to a feast and then burned the place down...killing everyone.

How very heroic he must seem now to a country who needs him for tourism, but I doubt very much that even modern Romanians would like to have him back in charge and running the country.

Can't argue there felix. and Glenn, we are talking about the way he treated his OWN people. What he did to the turks was all apart of war, true.

Brutal times and over the centuries warring countries enjoyed displaying the captured and executed soldiers in most unsavory ways - to instill fear in them... but some monarchs and warlords went a tad overboard and Vlad was one of them.. wasn't it written that while hundreds were spiked alive and to die slowly and painfully he held banquets outside and forced people to sit and eat while listening and watching people slip further and further down the stakes? In fact, I read that the stakes were stuck up a certain area in a woman and the rear hole for men as two favorite places.

umm, ouch? lol *shudders*

I do not feel I can make a judgement on character on someone who lived in such a different time from mine. What looks brutal to me was quite exceptable back then. In the end the results say, it worked. He stopped the invading Turkish army with a small ragtag band, stopped them, held them, and then pushed them back out of the country. Did he crucify people? Yes. Did it scarre the enemy and made them think twice about continuing the assault? Yes... so you be the judge.

Vlad ?

Neither brutal nor psychopath in my opinion

merely a product of his own time...
trying to enforce his law and keep power over his minions

In the 21st century obviously these acts would be frowned upon but could anybody truly say that George W. or Tony Blair would not resort to these methods of control if they knew such actions would not bring them to face a tribunal in the Hague ?

Megalomaniac maybe but was not Vlad just an enforcer of his rules in his time ?

well honestly i didnt know much on the subject until i read this thread and now i'm going to have to go research some more... however from what i have come to learn i agree with Nianna; she explains how i feel quite well.

thank you for bringing up the subject... it was a thread worth the read.

i look at it like this. if you love something you will do ANYTHING to protect it. if that means being bloodthirsty so be it

It is really interesting to see all these reponses.

But have you all stopped and wondered what is like to look at a human being on the eyes while you're murdering them???

I understand that as a leader it is hard to say what you wouldnt do for your people and your country being the one that people turn to for safety, etc.


Leaders now have people do the dirty work for them. People without remorse or moral values towards humanity.

The sick thing is, Vlad did this himself..he was out there....looking these men eye to eye, watching them slowly perish in their own living hell. Suffocating in their own bloody saliva, dying slowly and painfully, draining slowly as blood squirted everywhichway.


Now, stop and tell me if you got the balls and guts to stomach and live with the memory of someone's begging eyes for a quick and honorable death instead of a painful, unnecessary torture????


Vlad enjoyed this, he found pleasure in this...now, that to me is not heroic nor patriotic...its just plain sick.

He was a sick man.A living creature with a cold soul. He wasnt a vampire, he wasnt souless, or the living undead....he was very much alive and in control of what he did...he knew very well the actions he committed.


Psychopath. Yes. Thats it.

I saw the same program.

I see it like this, he was living in basically the same type of environment that is in parts of the world today. One religion thinking its better and wanting to wipe out all others. Insted of letting it go, he made a stand, tho a grusome one. His cause was just, tho his methods a bit extreme.

I would have liked to see the field of stakes tho.

well what is morally right now, may not have been then, i see what you are saying darkness, but over the many years of history there were many rulers like him, but he was just more recent than some of the ones we dont know the real story of

yes there are those now who do what we consider"immoral" although they are unhear of because the world is so vast and cause they are covered up by the governments and such

but my conclusion is i do think he was a hero but he was deffinately "not right" but an extremist, also could have had a obsession with death and watching life seep slowly from his victims and also those he felt threatening to him

well there alot of things to consider like wether he was a murderous monster or a hero for his country i belive he was a hero cuz the people that he did that to invaded romainia and raped and killed his people therefore its just an opinion

Vlad the Impaler was a torturer who delighted in the death and misery of countless people. Yes, he is a hero to some in Romania, but so is Stalin a hero to some in Russia. Lithuania which fell under the heel of Soviet domination, still celebrates the worst dictator of the 20th century with a notorious "Stalin Theme Park" where Lithuanians can go and picnic among statues and other reminders of a man responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Aspects of Vlad the Impaler inspired Bram Stoker's Dracula. Later interpretations see Vlad Dracul as a potent symbol of Nazi aggression in WWII, fired partly by Murnau's Nosferatu of the 1920s and the blood rites of the Aryans.

Was Vlad the Impaler as gruesome as legend depicts, or, as some Romanians, refuting the popular image, suggest, an heroic 15th century warrior and freedom fighter? Or is his reputation as a bloodthirsty mass-murderer, who sadistically impaled his victims, justified?

I suspect the latter is a more accurate picture of Vlad Dracula.

Whether or not he was a hero or a psychopath, no matter what you believe, you have to respect his technique. Clearly he was a man who understood the manipulations of peoples' fears, just as any effective soldier should.

I think he was a hero for them, and his means of taking care of business was merely a product of the times. Lots of ugliness back then- but was nothing new or different. We only have a spotlight on him due to the fictional novel inspired partly by his life.

Our view of him is clouded by the greater known story we have. But truthfully, no more a monster than any other ruler in those times. People handled things in extreme ways back then. Back then- he was just like every other asshole looney in charge, lol.

However, I would have thought of his acts as monstrous judging by my culture.

he took pride in his job ...whats wrong with that?

Even the sultan, the ruler of the Turkish invaders, was quoted as saying if this man had a larger country, he would be very powerful. And I have every reason to believe that if he lived TODAY he would be just as violent, what about Pol Pot? responsible for "the killing fields" in Cambodia. His own followers killed, thousands of innocent people. And this, my friends was not so long ago. He was a sophisticated young man who went to college despite his poor past. He was quiet and intelligent. Yet, like Vlad, he had something about him that set him apart in a very sadistic way. I do not blame the era, there were many rulers who did not do it that way and were still victorious. He was a sadist, he was a ruler, he is unique yet he is not. This could go on forever.

His years of being help captive and what he may have endured no doubt affected him mentally. When released he used what he had learned at the hands of his enemies against them in the most brutal way possible. He had a plan and he followed it to secure his lands and right to rule. I do not consider him a hero and while sickening, if the parties he forced to dine among the impaled were those considering going against him or his counrty, it'd had to be an effective deterrent. If so he could have been saving lives, strange thought there isn't it?

What of what he did to his own?

Horrible to us today but pretty much normal behavior for those of his rank in his time. As I said not a hero, in my opinion but he was effective in what he wanted to do.

hero, but crazy

Era can never be used as justification for the brutal way you treat your own people. That is where I stand on it.

Anti, I wouldn't begin to argue that it was justified, never could it be that. But human history has proven this type behavior happens again and again and not always by pshyopaths, that's why I think he was just using what he knew would work to shape his world.

He was without a doubt a tyrannical ruler who used extreme methods of punishment on his enemies and those who spoke out against him. I don't know that I would call him a hero, and am kind of surprised that there are people who do.

To commit such atrocities, I without a doubt believe that no matter the time period, there has to be some kind of mental malfunction. Most people are born with some what of a sense of empathy, he DID live in a civilized society, as in he did not grow up in the jungle. He also, knew he could get away with it, where as now, people would start to think twice maybe. So, no inhibitions. This is all fuel to an already twisted mind. We may never know, but what we can do is look at psychological profiles etc, most experts on the case would tell you that that was a catalyst there in him for the atrocities that occurred.

there*

And, one more thing, you could say "well other rulers of the time did it" lets not forget, that position, draws in a certain type of person. Like how a sociopath makes a great business man, certain types of people are drawn to certain positions.

Anti, I can't argue that point either as it does take a certain personality type to be successful in certain jobs. I just think he was crazy enough for whatever reason to be successful at using the most awful tactics. If you look also at Ghengis Kahn and Alexander The Great, they were probably of a similar personality type too.

From what I've heard, he seemed like a psycho.

I would argue that it may very well be psychopaths committing these acts again and again throughout history. A full 4% of the population is believed to be sociopathic. That means that as many as 1 in every 25 people may lack the basic empathy or feelings towards their fellow humans and animals.

It would take a sociopath to dole out punishments like impalement, or cutting off someones nose or nailing a hat to their head. It would take a sociopath to invent crucifiction as a punishment. It would take a sociopath to invent methods of torture. So I'd argue that while these things may have been common throughout history, they were still the inventions or actions of sociopaths and sadists.

The time of Vlad Dracula may have been brutal and other rulers may have been equally sociopathic, but that does little in the way of giving reason to sadistic pleasures and inhumane actions against one's enemies and especially against one's own people. Remember, Vlad managed to burn alive a large percentage of the poor and sick of his country because he despised "the weak".

The truth would seem to be irrefutable. Vlad Dracula's punishments were the actions of a man who took personal pleasure in the suffering of those around him and he apparently lacked the basic human understanding of mercy or kindness. That's a textbook sociopath.

Felix,
I agree with what you've said, but I also know that some do/have seen VD (heh) as a hero; same as people see other historical monsters as hero's; so rather than an either/or answer here, I think the answer can be both. *my two cents*

PS: Keep in mind that back then incest was very common, and inbreeding brings about mental struggle and ineficiency....Especially amongst nobles who want to keep their legacies abound. These people, nobles, royals, etc...were the ones most troubled out of all society if I may say. Deeply torubled. In any case, it still doesnt sanctify their acts. Morally, what Vlad did was wrong, even if it was a last act to prove his worth to his country.

You have a valid point Sevenn and likely a much more real world perspective on the situation, but I'd like to add the caveat that I would feel those who did raise the likes of Dracula and his ilk to hero status were or are horribly misguided about the idea of trading humanity for order and success.

i agree with felix, one madman turned into a hero by societies twisted mind doesnt make what he did right, granted it was his time and place to decide fate for a people, but hitler comitted genicide and he is considered evil and sadistic, why isnt he a hero?

And had Hitler won his war, many of his people (the one's he didn't ship off to die) would likely have (and perhaps still may have) called him a hero for expanding German influence and economic power.

My point is that hero is a term defined by those that use it and so while anyone can be someone else's hero, that won't change the fact that Dracula was a tyrant, a sadist and a sociopath...perhaps the product of years of child abuse and sexual abuse at the hands of the Turks and his own parents...but a sociopath none the less.

a little of both. He was a cruel person but he did what he had to do to get things done and to protect his people and country.

harsh times require harsh methods,by our standards of the here and now,he was too extreame,but for back then

There's a lot to consider.

I watched another documentary at one time that explained why Ivan the Terrible was so terrbile. He had a really bad issue with headaches, his docotor prescribed him MERCURY to deal with those headaches, something we now know to be poisonsous.... and the mercury pretty much drove him crazy.

It is possible that some of these other rulers had similar circumstances with the medicines of their time, or other things their modern science was not too knoweldgeable about.

I believe a little bit of both. Obviously he was a great leader because the people loved him and obviously he was crazy because of his actions. hmmm... or was he? Actually, now that I stop to think about it I wouldn't mind doing that to a couple of people

bram strokers dracular was based on vald dracula. he was blood thirsty. a psycho not a hero.

hero he protected Romania from the ottoman impire so i would say hero

Imagesinwords- while I agree that there are often reasons for personality disorders that lead to violence and tragedy, we musn't give a historical pass to those who have committed huge atrocities regardless of what abuse they may have endured or what poisons they may have been prescribed.

One has to wonder how these few individuals managed to put such a strangle-hold on their power that even the most socially unacceptable, the most obscene acts of sadistic bloodlust, were allowed to continue along with their rule. It does seem that mankind has always had a hard time shaking off tyrants, a hard time accepting that their leaders are unconscionable, a hard time accepting the attrocities done in their country's name.

I would not say that the Romanian people are turning to Vlad now as tourism - the great many romanian people wish to keep their history pure - the connection that is now made with Count Dracula is disliked by Romanians.

Vlad protected his people during both his reigns. He used methods that were common at the time and almost expected of him. If he had lost his empire to his enemies they would have done the same sort oif stuff during their rule - in that much he was a hero

His impaling was just a small part of his ways of killing or torturing people. I have visited one of his 'rooms' and the methods of killing people was bad - some of them made the impaling look pretty tame. He was a psychopath in my mind

I guess he was both

im curious as to what those rooms look like if you can give a brief description, since youve been there personally =)

will make for a great research venture in this topic!

Trying to put a label on something/someone when there are such drastic differences in society between their era and the present isn't so straightforward.

Yes he did good for people.
He also did some pretty nasty stuff too.

I'm sure that can be easily compared to modern day "rulers" as well.

One thing is for sure. Dracula was one of the coolest people in history.

oh just 1 other small thing to think about:

I doubt vlad actually impaled them him self i mean literally grad the stake and thrust it into his victims. he had to have commanded his soldiers to do this, so who is sicker the one commanding the act or the 1 actually doing it? and the soldiers all must have thought it was ok to do something like that for they could have easliy started a mutiny if they fely other wise

I too believe that he was a hero. He did what he had to do to keep his country safe and he succeeded.

I seen the same show.. and idk.. Personally i feel he wasnt neither.. I feel he just had a thurst. His passion was blood. So He thrived on that and that alone.

I have watched several different shows on him and I tend to agree with his subjects, he was a hero. His country was one of the smallest fighting to retain their lands from invading armies twice their size. He did what was necessary to facilitate victory over his enemies. Psychological warfare has been used for centuries. This man was no different. I think the legends greatly exaggerate his blood-thirsty attitude. As any leader would do, he did what he had to do to instill terror in the enemy thereby having an advantage against greater forces.

I think that he might be considered both because he killed tons of people, even some of his own county men, but he also kept the turks from envading his land once he gained controll of them. So he's a hero yet a murdering psychopath with certian blood thirsty intuitions... I love him anyways... ^_^

Being from Romania, I can tell you that Vlad was both a great ruler and a psycho... He had madness bursts, killing everyone in sight, but also he was the one who kept the invaders and a whole empire at respect... don't believe what you see in non-romanian documentary and try to get your hands on one of the chronicles written by romanian historians...

No I can assure you, I know Romanian history well, these documentaries were the 1st to say he wasn't a vampire, they were very accurate. They spoke to Romanian people, and went to Romania.

He was no hero but he was the ruler and he did do that. But human history is riddled with people that traded their humanity for safety or more terriority. Vlad and the Germans are just a couple of examples.

I don't give them a 'pass' FelixFelix- just something else to consider. You have a time period where this was in fact common among rulers of the world, and weird shit that went on in medicine and just the thought processes of the times in many aspects. Of course they were off their rockers anyway... but so were MANY others doing the very same thing.

Like I said.....Those "others" were drawn to the "business" of being tyrants because they were attracted to a profession that suited their mentality, basic psychology. So they all had some kind of mental issue going on there.

Vlad the Impaler = Saddam Hussien...

History or no history, that still doesnt change the fact that hes a murdering psychopath. *shrugs* .

Saddam Hussien, Adolph Hitler, Ivan the terrible, Pol Pot, vlad....COUNTLESS others, same issue, in a nutshell.

The problem with watching a film based on the history of Vlad Tepes, Or bathory is that not everything is mentioned. There is so much history documented. The most interesting detailof bathory was that she killed exactly 612 people, And Vlad has never been mentioned as actually killing any through the tortures beyond the wars that raged at that time. It is written that Vlad ordered the tortures.

My opinion on whether he is justified or just a psychopath is truly Complicated due to my researches on him. I honestly dont have a personal opinion. I can throw out a Thesis based on educated ideals. But I hold no real personal thought on the subject.

he was a totally amoral person. He didn't seem to have any concern for others. Just what was best for him. And fear helps keep you in power. look at Saddam.

i belive that the history channel is right. i belive vampires started from someone else.

that isn't even in question; we know he had nothing to do with starting/being involved with vampirism.

I agree a lot with what AntiEveryone has said and I need to thank her for saving me a lot of typing. So here is my two cents.Yes Vlad was not a vampire. But he knew on thing and did it real well and that was Hate. He hated his enemies so much and so did the the people of Romanian. So he kill early and often so to speak. His name in
Romanian was Draculea And Bram Stoker gave him his legendary status he has today.

Thank you coughcool.

DarknessBound, the description of his castles and rooms you asked for - I have visited his castle at Sighisoara, to be honest that was nothing special, it looked like a huge sprawling Hollywood type vampire castle - it has streets and houses inside the castle that stood on a hillside over the town.

On the way back we went to a smaller castle on the outskirts of Tirgu Mures, I think it was a winter castle or maybe a hunting lodge. It had a long room with hooks in walls where people were hung from ie the people were hooked through the flesh to the walls. It had like window seats that lifted up to show the huge pots where lumps of his victims were put after they had been flayed alive. There was an old diagram of how people should be impaled - narrow sharpened poles were placed into the victim's butt and they were either lowered or allowed to slide down it - they usually only died after the pole came up into something vital in their chest - that must have hurt

The worse bit for me was a very small room, people who had called Vlad bad things (like Dracu = the evil one) were told they were pardoned and asked to step into the room to get a reward. A rug inside covered a hole in the floor where they dropped onto a spike. If they didn't die, it didn't matter because they would be left in the pit underneath with other victim's and they would starve to death.

Not a nice man

He was pretty crazy, for sure... I missed the History Channel piece on him, but I've read a bit about him... Interesting, but very, very strange! :)

I don't believe that we have 'evolved' or become so much more civilized since these times. The main difference is that our weapons and wars have become 'cleaner' involving less eye to eye violence. However, the one difference between the rulers of that time period and much of todays rulers is that of royalty vs election. Most of modern day royalty is marginalized so that they have little say in the actual policy of their country. Since royalty didn't have to gain popular support, they were allowed far more leeway in their less than civilized practices and ruled through brutality in order to frighten potential coups.

Most rulers have to be elected now or rise through military ranks and lead a coup...which should make it far more difficult to be a sociopath and still gain popular support. However, with the rise of modern wealth based dynasties having strong influence on who leads, we may be seeing a shift back to a royal state where a sociopath or otherwise mentally ill family member could rise to power over common sense and civilized thought so long as that ruler had charisma.

Vlad was a guy with a SERIOUSLY messed up childhood. I don't know why he impaled so many people, but I do know as fact that he heatedly dispised the turks. He was, in some way, a hero to his anti-turkish population. Yet this guy was seriously sick in the head- but it wasn't entirely his fault- or so I'm told.

It becomes a tough call to decide how much fault to let someone have based on their childhood. Most serial killers and psychotics have been found to have disturbing childhoods and many received physical abuse and more specifically head trauma at an early age.

However, at what point to we pass from revulsion for someone's actions into sympathy for the life that created them. And even if it can be argued that there was severe cause and effect leading to someone's personality disorder, can one say that we are completely the results of our environment and that we have no responsibilities for the actions we take in life?

In as much as Vlad, halted the Turks he was a hero. I grew up in Spain and an half Spanish. The Turks did not represent the tolerant early Islamic world. Ferdinand and Isabel killed the Jews and forced the Muslims to convert. I see the militant Turkish Empire as much as the intolerant Catholic Kings.

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I know I sure see a difference from what I have learned in history class. I am happily living in 2006 because today I can have this discussion and not worry about being persecuted for it.

I suppose it is. But to what extent is freedom really freedom? nowadays anyway?If youre talking about people having rights and that we have become so much better with time, rights should not have limits then since we're in 2006 and we've evolved to much "better" individuals...so lets say I want to go kill puppies and harbor habits people consider 'illegal"...i wont have freedom because happytreehugger people will hunt me down and hurt me and the government will lock me up because im performing 'unconventional' actions.

lets say im rich and go to third world countries and hire a bunch of poor devils to work underpaid for long hours to feed their families...how is that much different from killing puppies and doing illicit actions?

im still hurting someone...emotionally, physically...just to a different degree.

so, monopolies hurt people, the lower class anyway...its all a political game now instead of a bloody blodbath in the 'field'.....its all a twist of words to keep the people happy.


thing is...diplomacy has evolved, not humans. take a look at our leaders...they are ruthless...the name of the game now is politics and it is ugly! foreign policies, etc...governmental actions might still be ruthless, there are spies and paid assasins, there are undercover agents...we just dont know about it, because we dont have THAT right to know such "classified" info...

its all a game, we're part of it...we;re just too worried with everyday life and troubles to really pay attention to it.

I dont know if I really knew so much of him until some of these posts .Especially Sevenn's posts.
Personally another wacko in my opinion from what I do know.I cant see how anyone can ever justify murder.
well another book for me to add to my " things I want to read" list..lol.Myabe I can come back with some better knowledge
Interesting thread darkness

Well my little opinion is just this, hero to his people and fellow country men. Psychopath to his enemies. Was he genuinely a psychopath that enjoyed killing, guess you can't be a true warrior/soldier without some desire to maim or kill, I now its also about being a defender, so he was both.

Good one, LadyWinterRogue. It is true, most of the people who think he was a horrible person are not Romanians. There is much that goes into a perception. Walk down the streets of Romania, you'll find he is quite well regarded. Not by me- but I am an American looking at him from MY perspective.

Things always get ugly in war, but there is such a thing of going to far. I think he did what he felt he had to do then lost it in the end.

good discussion guys. i really appreciate all your inputs and different points of view. =)

thanks!!!

I'm surprised by how ready we are to tidy up history into labels - black/white, this/that. So many factors and complexities have to be considered when looking back through the centuries.

Mass cruelty is woven into the very fabric of history, in short, into you and me. (If you don't believe me, visit any playground or council meeting where opposing dynamics meet.)

About a century before Jesus met the same fate, a roman general had 6,000 followers of Spartacus crucified and ordered to be lined all along the Appian Way leading right up to Rome where the moans could be heard and the dead could be seen from the city walls. In fact, it was common practice to nail the heads of those found guilty of treason to the rostra, smack dab in the middle of the Roman Forum where you had to do your everyday shopping.

War tactics , genocide, turture...French Guillotine, Tower of London, Spanish Inquisition, Nazi deathcamps, Mussolini in Ethiopia, American bombing of Hiroshima, etc... In fact, you name a country, and I doubt I'd have much trouble digging up a cruel past.

The easy mistake to make is to confuse the origin of cruelty with mental illness...it simply does not have to follow. It can be reluctantly employed in order to bring about a positive result like ending a war and securing victory for your side. Unfortunately, it can also be employed eagerly for the same reasons, but titles like "psychopath" aren't necessary when we have: King, Czar, Emperor, President, Prime Minister, Shah, Prince Vlad etc...

well put joli :)