Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docking Romania=latin country , Russia=slav country. Just because they are near oneonother doesnt mean they r alyke.
Oh and to set everything clear the most things u read about vlad is from some books writen by some englys and french hystotians wich are based of some letters send by local barons to the hungarian and turckysh courts to discredit vlad and to take the throne from him( lies lies lies). |
I've stayed out of the historical discussion largely because my knowledge of Romanian history or Vlad Dracula, in general, are fairly limited. I did have a couple questions, though. First off, I'd say the tendency to place Romania in with the Slavic countries by Western historians is fairly common. So, you'll have to forgive us on making that assumption. It's a byproduct of the Cold War mentality, when we established virtual boundaries between west and eastern Europe. Obviously, many of those are mischaracterizations, on our part. Still, I'm not crazy about the assumption that only Romanian historians are interested in solid historical research. As a historian myself (though several centuries removed from Dracula and several countries removed from Romania), I have found well meaning scholars throughout the world and most of the books they sell don't produce royalties enough to sell their reputations. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, though. I think you were just referring to the sensationalism around Dracula.
I was curious, however, about a couple things. It does seem fairly clear that Vlad used a variety of heinous measures over against his enemies in order to strike fear into them. It's also clear that these measures were often very effective, and they helped transform him into a legendary figure. He struck a terrifying presence and was able to defeat the Turks on numerous occasion. Moreover, even among his own people, he created a society that was relatively free of crime. However, I'm curious as to whether Vlad is lionized in modern Romanian society? Is he a sort of medieval hero?
The other point is that, from what I can gather, there are three key pieces of historical evidence used to tell the tales of Vlad Dracula: German and Russian Pamphlets published after Vlad's death and the Romanian Oral Tradition. Now, we know that both pamphlets (which were largely for entertainment purposes, and were obviously propaganda in many places) and the oral tradition are flawed means of uncovering the "truth" about any historical figure.
From what I gather, the reason that many historians give credibility to some of the pamphlets that were disseminated is because there's a remarkable amount of agreement between the Russian and German sources (again, these were not exactly cultures on friendly terms, so there would have been no collaboration or borrowing; or at least that's something to consider). It's in these sources that instances of his evil acts against his own people are recounted, I believe (such as the mass slaughtering of Wallachia's poor at a dinner held in their honor, etc.). So, my question is, how do you weight the evidence?
Again, I'm really curious. I don't have a lot invested in the subject, but am merely trying to figure out how you think we should sift through the evidence laid out. Thanks so much.