Horror of Dracula
and what you don't know about
"The Horror of Dracula movie is nothing compared to the horror of the real life of Vlad the Impaler, the most evil leader of all times", told me a US traveler in Romania, maybe quoting a very commercial History Channel (and many times far from the historical truth) movie.
This page is not about the 1958 movie with Christopher Lee.
This page is about how Vlad the Impaler received the "horror of Dracula" image and especially how much truth there is in it, where the truth stops and the fiction begins.
All people agree that he was a tough/cruel man of its time. Even Romanians. But from "a ..." man to "the most ..." man, more, of all times it's a loooong way. Some people called him even the Antichrist. Well, this is too much.
Do you think Romanians consider him a hero and try to defend his reputation? This is wrong, cause they don't. They simply try to explain you that all these are huge exaggerations with no historical evidences in their behalf. You were misled and you don't know where and how because you haven't got all the information for a correct judgment.
I can tell you how. Go and ask your parents or grandparents if they knew something about Vlad the Impaler before Dracula madness started 50 or 60 years ago. The most probable answer is nothing.
Then somebody capitalized on this and put Vlad's figure in the spotlight. I can assure you they made good money. And here it comes the people wish/need to find/show anything that brings Vlad the Impaler closer to the fictional vampire Dracula. Digging in Vlad's real life they found the German pamphlets what are not the most correct in the world.
That's it, clear and simple like daylight. But what is the missing information? What impressed you the most about Vlad the Impaler?
Vlad's cruel methods? If you resume your knowledge to Saxon stories you've right. Vlad had to be a sadistic degenerate to do all those horrible things. But if you try to enlarge your knowledge area you'll find a lot of things what will make you really doubt about those stories.
The large number of his victims? We are going to talk about numbers. Why? That who kills a person is called killer. If he kills several persons is called serial killer and if he mass kills is guilty of genocide.
His only reason for sadistic pleasures, for killing and blood? First of all let's establish the terminology. He who kills a single person, in times of peace, is a murderer; more killings of the same type and he is a serial killer while the mass murder is known as genocide (a contemporary word that can't apply to Dark Ages facts). And what's the name of that who killed in a battle? Soldier? Or warrior? Or even knight if he does it for a king or in the Christian name?
You see? The difference is in methods used, numbers and reasons. And because nobody seems to think at this, I'll add logistic, too.
"Horror of Dracula" methods
He used impalement on a large scale, right. Maybe too large! But, strange! There are no records about impalements before the spring of 1459. Two years and a half without impalements? How's that? How can be possible such thing with "the sadist and degenerate" Vlad the Impaler?
Also, there are no records (except German tales and Russian stories - what can't count because their source are German pamphlets, too) about burning, skinning, roasting, and boiling people, feeding people the flesh of their friends or relatives. Hungarians, Wallachians and Turks who were (beside the Saxons) directly involved in or closely to the events what generated those stories do not mention a word about it.
This must tell you something. In order to get familiar with what really were Vlad punishment methods and how did he used them, please read this article about "Punishments with Vlad Tepes - Punishments in Europe" wrote by History PhD Constantin Rezachevici. It makes great reading. Not for Vlad's sake! I bet you'll find out a lot of things you never heard about Europe in the Dark Ages.
"Horror of Dracula" numbers
Let's start with some quotes to help you understand what I want to say. Those who already read these sources can skip them. For those who want to read the whole article, the links will open a new window.
On www.nationmaster.com you can read:
"Thousands were often impaled at a single time. 10,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Vlad the Impaler had once lived) in 1460. The previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Vlad the Impaler had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Brasov that were breaking his authority impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad the Impaler feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brasov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims."
"In 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside of Vlad's capital of Targoviste. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000."
(BTW, Vlad the Impaler never lived in Sibiu. His son, Mihnea cel Rau, lived and died in Sibu.)
On www.wikipedia.org:
"Vlad the Impaler" is said to have killed from 20,000 to 40,000 European civilians (political rivals, criminals, and anyone else he considered "useless to humanity"), mainly by using his favourite method of impaling them on a sharp pole. The main sources dealing with these events are records by Saxon settlers in neighboring Transylvania, who had frequent clashes with Vlad III. Vlad III is revered as a folk hero by Romanians for driving off the invading Turks. His impaled victims are said to have included as many as 100,000 Turkish Muslims."
On www.answers.com they have almost the same text like NationMaster except they start the paragraph with "There are claims that thousands of people were impaled at a single time. One such claim says 10,000 were impaled..."
It's very clear that, direct or indirect, they used the same source, German pamphlets that says Vlad impaled 10000 people in Sibiu and 30000 merchants and noblemen in Brasov. Now, let's do a little math to help you understand. But first I ask you to not think in the context of our times. Think at the population numbers from the Dark Ages that are much lower then today's numbers. Think there were over 10 epidemics of plague/black death in the previous 200 years of Vlad rule. They simply decimated the European population, especially Balkan population. Think at their technologies (even this word is a real blasphemy for that time).
Saxon people as Vlad's victims:
- How can those numbers be possible when Brasov was the biggest Transylvanian town and counted about 12000 people (please pay attention: people, not traders and noblemen) at that time? Sibiu was the third (after Cluj) and had about 10000 inhabitants. (These are scholars' numbers, not mine.)
Vlad had to impal/kill not only the whole population of Sibiu and Brasov, but also the whole population between the two towns in order to rich the numbers from those stories. And if it's about "30000 traders and noblemen" Vlad would have killed at least a half of the merchants and noblemen of entire Transylvania (counting about 800000-1000000 inhabitants at that time).
But history demonstrates that all towns and villages around Sibiu and Brasov and between them survived to each and all Vlad's attacks. - Vlad the Impaler's intentions were never to start a war with Transylvania. He was at war only with the merchants from the two towns (because of his economic policy) and the noblemen who ruled them (because they hosted Vlad's rivals for Wallachian throne sustaining their usurping plans). To understand how this conflict started and degenerated read Vlad's external policy.
It's known that he attacked them only with his mercenary army (4000 horsemen). To kill every soul in sight wasn't Vlad's aim. Doing this would be like he signed a declaration of war with Transylvania. King Mathias Corvin wouldn't ever accept such thing. Vlad only wanted to spread fear and panic (what he certainly succeeded).
He practiced thunder attacks in the speed of horse gallop, hurling torches aside and sword cutting everyone who tried to stay in their way. They could take some prisoners to impale them as an example. But... - Vlad never conquered any of the two towns. He attacked only the peripheral/commercial areas, outside the fortress' walls. The reason was destroying (generally by fire) as much merchandises as he could (not killing people) and scaring the merchants to death.
The most people escaped between the fortress walls. Vlad's victims were those who stayed between him and his goal trying to defend their merchandises. Vlad's soldiers cut them down or took them prisoners to impale them later. There were other victims through those who tried to hide around and were caught by fire.
How many prisoners do you think he could take? Each of the two towns had a garrison of mercenaries for their defence. What were doing those soldiers? Just standing by and looking (maybe taking notes) how Vlad's 4000 soldiers cut the forest, prepare the stakes and impale 10000/30000 people then peacefully feast in their shadow?
Can you see the smile on my face? Because this is really ridiculous. The truth is Vlad retreated as quickly as he attacked because he couldn't afford to give his enemies time for regrouping their forces and counterattacking. How many did he kill? Less, much lesser then what the stories say. In such a rush, there were war victims, true, but not victims of Vlad's impetuous cruelty or sadism.
Turkish people as Vlad's victims:
- The first conflict with Turks was South of Danube, when Hamza Beg tried to capture or kill Vlad at the order of Sultan Mehmed II. We don't have many records about this battle but let's walk together in Vlad's shoes. You have 4000 men against 10000 Turks.
Do you think it's easy to win the battle? You win, but how many dead people are on the battlefield from both sides? How many alive and able to fight? And especially, who are more numerous? Your people or the Turks? Do your people still have the energy to run after disorganized Turks, catch them and impale them? The vampire Dracula can do this in any movie, but what about the real life?
Here is my scenario: it was a Vlad style battle, quick and surprising, sparing his own people lives. He caught Hamza Beg together with his staff. Once left without its leaders, it was a peace of cake to put the Ottoman army on the run. Then Vlad impaled Hamza Beg and his people.
Vengeance? Very possible. In the end Hamza wanted Vlad's head. But I'd say his main reason was to warn those spread around Turkish soldiers (still many and alive). He wanted to tell them to not come back after him. The bottom line is that in such conflict there are always war victims. - The second Vlad's confrontation with Ottomans was in 1461-1462 winter. He mentioned about the 23884 Turks killed in this campaign in his letter to Matthias Corvin. Well, I doubt he really counted his dead enemies. He simply hadn't had time for this.
In order to be successful, Vlad had to move from a target/fortress to another quicker than all the news about his campaign. He bet on surprise and speed attacks and also used tricks/disguising. So, no war prisoners and no time for impaled people. The main goal being to destroy the Turkish fortress along the Danube River such way that they can't give a helping hand in the future Sultan's campaign.
Although this campaign was a success, Vlad the Impaler knew he needs King Mathias Corvin support in the future. Vlad had to convince the king about his affiliation to the Christian cause, as well as about the effectiveness of his army leader skills. And a sharp number is much more credible than a rounded one. (think at the prices: $19.99 beside $20.) Just another psychological trick. - The third conflict was with Mahmud Pasha the Greek sent by the Sultan Mehmed II to secure the Danube frontier and make sure Vlad does not cross it again. But Mahmud invaded Wallachia, plundered and enslaved. Again, 4000 Wallachians against 18000 Turks. I won't repeat myself because the situation is pretty much alike the first conflict.
- The last and the longest conflict was the campaign of Sultan Murat II in Wallachia. Nobody knows for sure how many Ottomans died in this campaign. We know the Sultan's army had great losses. We also know what chronicler Chalcocondil told about the terrifying view of the forest of (20000) impaled people. All those are war victims, too.
But, even I have a deep respect for chronicler Chalcocondil, I think this number is a mistake. Maybe he was too terrified (it's known that fear makes things around larger, the more fear, the bigger those things are)... Maybe he wasn't close enough for a correct evaluation... That number is too large in my opinion. How does this come? Read the chapter, "Horror of Dracula" logistic. Did I see a smile on your face? - Let's make a sum of the Ottomans who fought against Vlad:
10000 (of Hamza Beg) +
40000 (in Danube campaign) +
18000 (of Mahmud Pasha) +
80000 (of Sultan himself) =
148000 Ottomans.
Counting there were other little battles against plundering Turkish armies (counting 2000-3000 soldiers) what weren't consent in any document I'd round up this number to 170000.
In Wikipedia and many other sources you can read that Vlad impaled (didn't killed in the war) 100000 Turks. Do you really thing this was possible? This looks like those Ottomans knew nothing about a fight in a war. (Really?!?!) Probably they surrendered or even impaled themselves.
Romanian/Wallachian people as Vlad's victims:
The truth is there are no records of Romanians killed by Vlad. We can make only subjective appreciations starting from the indirect sources we have.
Western writings took German sources as reference and appreciate that the thirst of blood and sadism of Vlad the Impaler drove to thousands, even tens of thousands Romanian victims.
Romanians take our own legends as reference and appreciate that Vlad, through his good justice, cleaned up the country. How many victims? Nobody can appreciate. Romanians never tried to count them because they consider Vlad was a just man (not a degenerate) and he punished only those who deserve it.
Now, where is the truth? And how credible are these sources?
- Let's see who did Vlad kill from his own people? Unfaithful boyars (noblemen) who conspired to change him with one of his rivals or who proved to be dishonest. Every king/reign/ruler from Europe of that time did the same. His predecesors did the same. Nothing special, except the method.
And if somebody tells you he killed thousands of them, please remember that Wallachia had at that time about 500 boyars (nobles, landowners). So, I'd say they were just few. See Vlad's internal policy to understand why. - People from his army who didn't listen his order and due to their action many of Vlad's soldiers lost their lives. Death punishment was common in all Europe for this offence. Some people say that because Vlad's unstable behaviour even his own bodyguards feared for their lives. Ha! Ha! They were paid soldiers. So, please tell me, how much money worth your life? Vlad wasn't a rich man. I can assure you he couldn't have afforded such payments.
More, I can say (again?!) he was a just man because his people trusted and loved him. Read the Romanian legend on this subject, especially the same event it's relayed by the chronicler Chalcocondil. - Any kind of criminals who harmed the well beeing of honest people. This must be detailed, because I have two questions here. How many criminals did he execute? The Dark Ages abounded in public executions. Their reason was the power of the example, the fear of people who watched them to not be in the criminal place. Did Vlad need to impale one hundred at one time?
And here we have two approaches: all those who believe in Vlad's sadistic nature will say YES. Assuming this is right, how much time do you think it needs to catch 100 criminals? A month? Maybe two? And after those 100 were impaled, how much time do you think they needed to catch another 100 criminals? Four months? Maybe six? Do you think it's too much? After the "impaling" show how many people still kept their criminal behaviour? And those who still kept it didn't become much more careful?
Continuing with this calculation you'll simply arrive at the conclusion that Vald could kill 10000 Wallachians only for false reasons. Of course! He was a degenerate! Reeealy?!! See my second question for more explanations.
The other, more reasonable approach is that ten, maybe twenty criminals, each one impaled as soon as he was caught, were more than enough to reach Vlad's goal. Here comes the second question. - Did he really kill innocent people only for his sadistic pleasure? There is a variable in this equation that German stories fans eliminated: Romanian people. They think about Vlad as being a just man. It's time to find out why they are thinking this way by reading the Romanian legend of Dracula (oops! Not ready yet, but coming soon).
And if you don't care about what the Romanian people thought, try this: Vlad's contemporary Antonio Bonfini, the official historian of King Mathias Corvin described him as being a "cruel and just man". Now whom will you believe? Some anonymous pamphlet writer who wrote malicious things or a well known impartial historian of Vlad's time who wasn't under his command (no need to curry favour with him)?
"Horror of Dracula" reasons
The answer is in Vlad's own words: "And you must think that if a man or a ruling prince is powerful and strong, than he can make peace as he wishes but, if he is weak, somebody more powerful will come against him and will do with him what he pleases".
He needed to strengthen his position by eliminating his rivals and their upholders (the punished noblemen traitors and the second reason for the conflict with Saxons). I know this isn't a good reason for our days, but was a good one for the survival in Dark Ages Europe, not only in Wallachia. So, I can't understand why something common in Europe can't apply as common for Vlad.
For the well beeing of Wallachia he reduced crime (by public punishments of guilty people). A good reason for the honest Wallachians.
Vlad changed the commercial laws (the first reason for his conflict with Saxons). A very good reason for the Wallachian economy. Unfortunately for Vlad's image it wasn't good at all for Saxon traders.
And refused to pay the tribute to Ottomans (driving to the war with Turks). A very good reason for Wallachians as well as for the other Christian countries that benefited from.
What about his sadistic pleasure for killing people as a reason? If you're not yet convinced that this is only a fantasy of "Dracula the vampire" fans, please read what the history PhD Constantin Rezachevici says.
"Horror of Dracula" logistics
Another contemporary word sounding as a real blasphemy for that time. But if you look in a dictionary for this word (the process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services and related information from their point of origin to point of consumption for the purpose of conforming to customer requirements) you realize that even Vlad Dracula needed what logistics meant to be in his operations.
First you have to know there weren't jails in Wallachia of Dracula's time, mainly because of the kind nature of Wallachian laws. So, if a criminal escaped alive from a punishment, he could freely go home after and repeat his crimes without being caught ever more. Vlad's capital punishment for any kind of crime reduced repeated crimes and frightened all those with similar intentions. Is this good or bad? If you think at Dracula's methods is baaad. But thinking at his accomplishments it's not that bad!
Now, don't tell me he could build some prisons and differentiate the punishments. If you'd be a ruler of a poor country from Dark Ages you'd spent money on building prisons and taking care of the criminals? Yes?! Reeeally?! Wouldn't the majority of honest people come first? What would you do for them?
The lack of jails also drove to the "no war prisoners" policy. So, when you read somewhere about the 20000 prisoners impaled or the forest of impaled prisoners, please remember this policy. Now that I opened this subject let's detail. Knowing that Vlad hadn't any Turkish prisoner before the Ottoman campaign let's see the course of the events from a logistic point of view.
- The Sultan's army arrived south to Danube (Nicopolis, Bulgary) at the end of May. Vlad tried to stop him but failed.
- He took tried again immediately after the Ottoman army crossed the Danube (close to Turnu Magurele, Romania) and failed again.
- Without chance of a direct confrontation Vlad switched to guerrilla tactics, leaving the Ottoman army without water and food. Before "the Night Attack" (17/18 of June) he limited to strike out the small Ottoman units (100-300 people) sent by the Sultan to find water and food. How many prisoners do you think he had taken?
- In the Night Attack Vlad produced the greatest damage to the Ottoman army. But in the morning retreat they had to fight for their own lives not for prisoners.
- Only in the next 3-4 days, before the arrival of the Ottoman army in front of the "forest" Vlad's army could have made prisoners. But they attacked only those small units searching for food and water. So...
Counting the march of the Ottoman army through Wallacia was about 175km/110 miles long during 3 weeks, how did Vlad managed to catch, transport under escort, keep and watch the prisoners until execution time then impale 20000 Turks (from the total of 80000 pretended by Mehmet the Conquerer who's happened to be one of most powerful military leaders)? All these with a 25000 people army formed mostly by peasants? And, in the mean time, his army still harasses the Ottoman army.
Well, please show me in the world history a 25000 people unprofessional army (or any other numbers, but keeping the right ratio) catching, transporting and keeping prisoners 20000 army professionals and I'll rest my case.
- How many people did Vlad need to catch 20000 alive Turks?
- How many had he to kill before taking 20000 prisoners?
- How many people did he lost in those battles?
- How many for transport and watch over the prisoners?
- And how many to still damage the Ottoman army?
- How long was the transportation (distance and time)?
- On what roads?
- How did they manage the hot weather?
- Where and how did he keep the prisoners until the execution day?
- Did he spend something for prisoners' feeding?
- If yes, what were the costs (keep in your mind that prisoners number is almost equal with Vlad's army number)?
- If no, how many Turks managed stay alive up to the execution point/time?
- Who, when and how many people executed the prisoners?
- If you think there were army people think that Vlad couldn't use them in other actions.
- If you think there were civilians (women, children under 14 y.o. and ill people) multiply by 3.
- And so on...
The more you detail, the more you realize that such thing is impossible. If you still think Vlad really did this... What can I say other than... WOW! Vlad Dracula deserves a place in World Guinness Book of Records between the greatest army leaders of from all times because I don't have knowledge that anybody did such performance. Just kidding! But the point is, if there really were 20000 impaled Ottoman, those couldn't be neither prisoners, nor alive before the impalement.
And we arrive at the next question: were those 20000 real people? No kidding!
Let's assume Vlad impaled already dead people. The only difference between this situation and that previous discussed is the number of people he needed in logistic actions what would be much lower. But the second implies a new dangerous issue for Vlad.
The summer in Wallachian plain is hot. On such weather a dead body will decompose so quickly that in few days it becomes impossible to keep the flesh on the bones. Explain to me how could somebody impale such remains? Also, on such hot weather every dead body (what about 20000?) becomes a source of infections and diseases. Do you think Vlad could risk starting an epidemic inside his own army? Historical sources show him as a very a smart leader, and that is incompatible with such foolish thing.
- The terrifying view made Chalcocondil to enlarge the number according with his own scare. And/or... Most of historians take as real the number given to us by Pietro of Thomassis (80000 Ottomans and 24000 Wallachians - the numbers used by myself). But the number given by Laonic Chalcocondil is 250000 Ottomans (no number for Wallachians as I know). From 250000 to 80000 is a looong distance, too.
- What about filling Turkish clothes with straw then impaling them. It would be a playing job for the women and children. From where so many clothes? Every large cloth, bed sheet, blanket cover or tablecloth could be used to improvise Turkish clothes. You'll say that Ottomans could have noticed the difference. From a certain distance, the filled clothes moving in the blowing wind can be easy confused with real bodies struggling for their last breath. Well, such thing isn't recorded about Vlad Dracula. But it's a Romanian tactic used along our history to psychologically reduce the difference between armies. I can't see why the artful mind of Vlad couldn't use it. Considering his logistics I see it as the most probable.
The bottom line? Most of Vlad's victims were war victims made for his own country wealth and freedom. Does this absolve him from cruelty guilt? Nope! But what I meant is that he was only a common case between the European leaders of the Dark Ages.
He wasn't THE MAN neither in the positive way nor in the negative. He was only A MAN of his time.
The "Horror of Dracula" side is only one side of the medal. Arriving at this point of reading you saw the other side, too. But true life is not a medal. Romanians have a word for this: the devil is not that black. Meaning there is not black and white in our life. Only gray tones. And somebody can see the fairer/lighter side or the darker side depending on his/her own position confronted by a thing/person.
Still, a friend of mine asked me what if the "horror of Dracula" was applied to my own son. How could I feel then? Very good question and you'll have the answer soon.
Back to Count Dracula page.
Previous page: The tomb of Dracula
Next page: Vlad Tepes punishments
Exit "Horror of Dracula" and return to "Exploring Romania" homepage!
