50-Dracula: Bad Blood

Hi i really enjoy your podcast. I was looking forward to this episode because I am from Romania so i get asked a lot about this when i meet foreign people. I just wanted to comment that the association with dragon for the name of Dracul is not right. It just means the devil. Thank you again for this awesome podcast it always makes me laugh:)

I love this podcast and am glad to finally reach the Dracula episode. I’ve studied Victorian Gothic literature with focus on monstrous creatures, as well as studied the life of Vlad Dracul, and have a few interesting tidbits to add.

First, on the character of Vlad himself, both when he ruled and even today, natives to his land usually thought him to be a great leader. There is an anecdote (thought to be real) that Vlad would leave a golden chalice in the town square and no one would ever steal it because of his no tolerance for crime policy. He may have been vicious to the boyars and other scheming parties, but my understanding is that he was a decent ruler to the common folk—just don’t be someone with power seeking to overthrow him. In a time when his land was surrounded by hostile forces on all sides and peasants could barely scape by, peasants knowing they were safe from thieves (foreign, domestic, or nobility) was a pretty good deal for them. On the flip side, he had a somewhat Spartan approach to lives and tended to kill off the sick and handicapped who couldn’t contribute to society.

Also, while pamphlets about Vlad were some of the first items published after the Bible on Gutenberg’s printing press, they are also starting to be seen as some of the first propaganda printed with a moveable type printing press. So while there’s no question about the brutality of his tactics, the opinions about him were not necessarily shared by all.

Ironically, most of the excess of impaling that he became famous for happened because he responded to a crusade called by the Pope in 1459. He was the only ruler in the surrounding countries who answered the call, which was important because a gigantic army of Turks was poised at Europe’s backdoor (the same Turks that held him captive most of his childhood and young adult life, so maybe desire for revenge played a part). Mohammed II wanted control of the Danube, from which he could launch naval attacks and defend against attacks by the Holy Roman Empire. When Vlad was the only one to respond to the crusade, Mohammed II saw it as his opportunity and started taking control of the surrounding area.

When Vlad chose his family’s commitment to be a vassal to Hungary (the Dragon Order) and refused to pay the traditional tribute to the Turks (the same tribute that led to him being captive by the Turks in his youth), the Turks invaded Wallachia and he was forced to defend himself. His success against the Turkish armies (he was reportedly praised by many Europeans for his success at Giurgiu) drew the ire of Mohammed II himself, who left his campaign at Corinth to attack Vlad personally.

As you mentioned, Vlad was forced to retreat through his own lands, implementing scorched earth policy, poisoning his own wells and burning his own crops, and using guerrilla tactics. The famous “Forest of the Impaled,” along with Vlad’s militarily brilliant attack on the Turkish camp the previous night, are credited with turning back Mohammed II and his armies, saving Wallachia from being annexed by the Turks. If he hadn’t been successful, his whole kingdom might have become Turkish and we’d be living in a very different world.

None of that excuses elements of the man himself that are reprehensible, particularly his distaste for the weak, but understanding that he was a brilliant tactician navigating the safety of his small kingdom that the Turks, the Holy Roman Empire, and the other Pope (via Hungary) all wanted to claim on their side helps put his story in perspective. From historical accounts, he wasn’t particularly worse than other tyrannical rulers of the day, he was simply willing to do be more public about what he perceived as necessary to solidify his power and protect his kingdom.

He was a captive much of his life in hostile lands and usually viewed as a pawn, buffer against an enemy, or obstacle to be crushed by his enemies, so he carved his own place in the world. He’s still a cruel and merciless villain with thousands of murders attributed to him, but he’s a much more nuanced character when we have a greater understanding of what drove him to his choices.

A final thought, I hope Stoker appreciated the irony of basing his character that can be killed with a wooden spike on a man who killed men on wooden pikes.