OP
- Thread Starter
- #21
.I can live with coward...lviing is good
Yeah, especially without a 10 foot stake jammed up your anus. Sign me up for coward!
The Vlad Enigma
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Yeah, especially without a 10 foot stake jammed up your anus. Sign me up for coward!
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
you keep using that word...i do not think it means what you think it means.
inconceivable
girlbug2
Master of Arts
I don't agree with your profiles of honest men and flatterers.
From my POV, the honest man was probably the more cynical of the two, and therefore very brave to speak the truth. Principle above all else is the driving force behind an honest man.
Flatterers OTOH are more likely to put their OWN survival above all else. Often they will justify to themselves that they have to "for the sake of my family", but really, it's just self interest/fear.
From my POV, the honest man was probably the more cynical of the two, and therefore very brave to speak the truth. Principle above all else is the driving force behind an honest man.
Flatterers OTOH are more likely to put their OWN survival above all else. Often they will justify to themselves that they have to "for the sake of my family", but really, it's just self interest/fear.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #26
I know, its very generalized. It can easily be argued either way.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Id Kill Vlad, seize power and bang a bunch of hot Romanian chicks.
Bwom chicka wah wah.
Bwom chicka wah wah.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #28
Yeah, that would change the "Impaler" story...
Hmm.If you think about it, the true version of who got impaled must have stated it was the monk who told the truth who was killed. Because the monk actually had an illegitimate child whose descendants in the future migrated to Ireland.
One descendant decided to avenge his ancestors death by writing a novel and associating the word Dracul to the main character/villain in the novel. But this time,unlike his ancestor who spoke the truth,he made up lies about the main character only having a strong thirst for blood without detailing his victories against the Ottomans.
His name was Bram Stoker.
One descendant decided to avenge his ancestors death by writing a novel and associating the word Dracul to the main character/villain in the novel. But this time,unlike his ancestor who spoke the truth,he made up lies about the main character only having a strong thirst for blood without detailing his victories against the Ottomans.
His name was Bram Stoker.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
kaizasosei
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,180
- Reaction score
- 24
I think that Vlad was someone that was extremely oversensitive and ambitious. I believe he must have had great reverance for christianity and the figure of jesus, but when you read about his cruel nature, you wonder exactly what his beliefs were and how he interpreted the bible. One also has to wonder as to what on earth could have happened to him that made him so cruel. Possibly it has to do with his father being killed as a traitor, losing his wife and infant son in the same night. Wife believing that escape from enemy seige impossible, suicided jumping into the princess river. Infant was supposedly dropped by a servant fleeing on horseback. Also, he spent time in captivity. According to the one story i came by, many years later, peasants presented to the ruler vlad, a boy that they had found as an infant claiming it was the lost son.
It is clear that he was a great military leader and strategist as well as a powerful figure of the times, part of the socalled order of the dragon that had sworn to battle the enemies of christianity. Chances are that many of his initial attrocities were based on a certain degree of reason, but it is known that once one takes part of murderous activities, there is a chance of become extremely megalomanic and psychotically dependant on violence as a solution.
Basically, i would sum it up by saying that vlad was extremely judgemental of the little things. I believe that he didn't care about what was right and wrong nearly as much as he cared about the way people would address him or even esteem others.
In many ways, i think that his feelings were more than often correct and justified. However, his course of action was often extremely cruel. It's hard to comment and judge on things that happened so long ago and it's also difficult discerning to what degree such actions may have been necessary in light of the great spiritual and territorial wars at the time.
So, if i were in the position of the of dealing with someone like vlad, i would not say or do anything to piss him off. there are many cultures that are very easily offended and vlad was such an individual. I'm guessing that one simple stupid look or anything said with a forked tounge would mean instant shishkebab. So i would not get indignant on him unless i really believed in my cause or am ready to die. Even then i would play on his position of power and emplor him crying out rather than trying to convince him with detatched intellect or indirect kinds of threats. He believed himself to be a 'man of great power'.
Having seen many battles vlad was probably a very 'street smart' and cunning individual. I think it is now safe to speculate,however, that he was not well capable of dealing with certain kinds of attacks with anything other than violence. Indeed, if one loses faith in spiritual power or becomes obsessed with worldly power, it is common for people to resort to violence. Still it's hard to judge things that are almost legends rather than accurate historical depictions.
The case reminds me of the story in the bible where a foreigner attacks one of moses' people and moses comes in to defend by striking the attacker down dead, whereupon moses saw his subject look up at him and saw that in that moment the man did not believe in god anymore but only believed in moses.
If one looks closer at the notion that vlad believed himself to be a man of power, one can see that it is at the same time a cry for love or forcefully demanding respect. A tough kind of situation that many ify leaders of all ages including contemporary ones have issues with. Also, because killing and evil deeds no matter how whitewashed by reason of plight, will eventually get the better of any man that has a shred of humanity left in him.
The true monsters and vampires of all ages, however, are the powermongers that controll people without geting their hands dirty at all and actually care little to understand the nature of brotherhood, mercy or justice.
movie to come out this year anyhow, so we're a bit ahead of things. Will be interesting to see the movie. Apparently it will try to show vlad as a kind of national hero that played an instrumental role in saving europe from invasion by the turks. My romanian friend told my that one of the most strategic things that the army had done(other than killing masses and masses), was to at some point stop the food and supply rations of the invaders of reaching those that had already penetrated deep into europe already knocking at the gates of vienna. There is a park in vienna called the türkenschanzpark where it is reported the turks had advanced to. There is also a huge statue of a ukranian kossak soldier and a statue of a huge horse of his. He is depicted sitting smoking a pipe with a banjo-like instrument and a musket around his shoulder along with the ukranian sword that was recently shown here on mt. The romanians role in stopping the invasion is someone underplayed. These ukranian soldiers of the time where among others called in to assist the men fighting just outside the city.
j
It is clear that he was a great military leader and strategist as well as a powerful figure of the times, part of the socalled order of the dragon that had sworn to battle the enemies of christianity. Chances are that many of his initial attrocities were based on a certain degree of reason, but it is known that once one takes part of murderous activities, there is a chance of become extremely megalomanic and psychotically dependant on violence as a solution.
Basically, i would sum it up by saying that vlad was extremely judgemental of the little things. I believe that he didn't care about what was right and wrong nearly as much as he cared about the way people would address him or even esteem others.
In many ways, i think that his feelings were more than often correct and justified. However, his course of action was often extremely cruel. It's hard to comment and judge on things that happened so long ago and it's also difficult discerning to what degree such actions may have been necessary in light of the great spiritual and territorial wars at the time.
So, if i were in the position of the of dealing with someone like vlad, i would not say or do anything to piss him off. there are many cultures that are very easily offended and vlad was such an individual. I'm guessing that one simple stupid look or anything said with a forked tounge would mean instant shishkebab. So i would not get indignant on him unless i really believed in my cause or am ready to die. Even then i would play on his position of power and emplor him crying out rather than trying to convince him with detatched intellect or indirect kinds of threats. He believed himself to be a 'man of great power'.
Having seen many battles vlad was probably a very 'street smart' and cunning individual. I think it is now safe to speculate,however, that he was not well capable of dealing with certain kinds of attacks with anything other than violence. Indeed, if one loses faith in spiritual power or becomes obsessed with worldly power, it is common for people to resort to violence. Still it's hard to judge things that are almost legends rather than accurate historical depictions.
The case reminds me of the story in the bible where a foreigner attacks one of moses' people and moses comes in to defend by striking the attacker down dead, whereupon moses saw his subject look up at him and saw that in that moment the man did not believe in god anymore but only believed in moses.
If one looks closer at the notion that vlad believed himself to be a man of power, one can see that it is at the same time a cry for love or forcefully demanding respect. A tough kind of situation that many ify leaders of all ages including contemporary ones have issues with. Also, because killing and evil deeds no matter how whitewashed by reason of plight, will eventually get the better of any man that has a shred of humanity left in him.
The true monsters and vampires of all ages, however, are the powermongers that controll people without geting their hands dirty at all and actually care little to understand the nature of brotherhood, mercy or justice.
movie to come out this year anyhow, so we're a bit ahead of things. Will be interesting to see the movie. Apparently it will try to show vlad as a kind of national hero that played an instrumental role in saving europe from invasion by the turks. My romanian friend told my that one of the most strategic things that the army had done(other than killing masses and masses), was to at some point stop the food and supply rations of the invaders of reaching those that had already penetrated deep into europe already knocking at the gates of vienna. There is a park in vienna called the türkenschanzpark where it is reported the turks had advanced to. There is also a huge statue of a ukranian kossak soldier and a statue of a huge horse of his. He is depicted sitting smoking a pipe with a banjo-like instrument and a musket around his shoulder along with the ukranian sword that was recently shown here on mt. The romanians role in stopping the invasion is someone underplayed. These ukranian soldiers of the time where among others called in to assist the men fighting just outside the city.
j
Last edited:
