GENIUS FORUMS

If the devil did not temporarily escape hell and pretend to be human, I have little other explanation as to the existence and actions of Vlad Tepes ( Vladimir the Impaler ). He makes Hitler and even Genghis seem "nice". This is a man who once impaled 10 000 of his own people at once for unknown reasons, once even 30 000. This is a man who rarely ate a meal without sitting next to a squirming, impaled Turk. This is a man who ordered people's headgear to be nailed to their heads if they did not take it off in his royal company. When imprisoned by Turkish forces for a while he "charmed" prison guards into fetching small mice and other animals for him so he could impale them in his cell for "fun" with small sticks. His other methods of torture were so vulgar that I refuse to even elaborate. Ultimately, his own people forged letters to incriminate him and the Turkish ultimately severed off his head in battle, which was then preserved in a jar of honey as "a trophy".

This is why I hate and love history. It can be gruesomely morbid and wicked at times which is depressing. And yet, it is the ultimate "tool" to investigate the capabilities and the logic of mankind. Some people I know say they see no point in studying history, I beg to differ. Besides the fact that History happens every day, it can really educate you as to what people are capable of and how such situations can be prevented. So anyway, as for the situation of Tepes: One can call him super evil, but what would you call all the many thousands of people who carried out his torture procedures for him? What would you call the people who stuck 40 000 of his own people through sticks for him, and for no particular reason? makes you think, doesn't it? How did this happen and how could his people not have dragged him off the throne immediately after these events? One almost tries desperately to defend these actions, for no other reason but to find sanity in this picture. But can sanity be found here? He was unhappy over Saxon immigrants in his towns? Not good enough for crimes like his. But, to return to my actual question: If Tepes was merely insane ( which he must have been ), how can one justify the actions of the thousands of people who helped to bring his morbid fantasies to life? And how could they not have taken him off the throne merely with the logical thought that he could turn on anyone at any time and de-skin or impale them at any time for no particular reason? Who can trust such a ruler? Who can watch thousands of their own kind rot for months on sticks all over towns and not revolt? I should probably research this issue more, but it scares me to think that any nation could have allowed such acts to be done to their own people. Maybe they had good reasons? How corrupt is humanity exactly or what precisely motivated these people?

Well, there's a few basic theories on this. Actually, I've been reading a few things on why people are violent lately, but haven't decided where I stand on the issue, so I'll just toss out several ideas I've seen recently here.

1. Fear - this guy just shoved 40,000 random people on pikes for doing nothing. Exactly what do you think he would do to you if you disobeyed him? This was used, and accepted, as an excuse for many rank and file members of the Nazi army.

2. Humans tend to obey authority. Now I'm forgetting the name of the psychologist but he did an experiment where they looked to see how far people would torture other people on their own vs with someone 'coaching' them to do so. The differences were dramatic; with an authority figure people are much likely to go along when they would otherwise stop.

3. There is some primal/animal part of us that likes seeing death and violence. Hense the popularity of WWF, Gladiatorial games, public hangings, the youtube of Saddam hanging, etc. If we don't have to take a part of the blame on ourselves, we like watching.

4. Used to it - while we are looking at the scene from 2007, they're looking at it from a time when public executions of criminals is common. The author I'm currently reading states that people don't 'just become' violent. They are victimized, then see someone else they love be victimized, and then go through this whole long process until they become victimizers themselves, which includes having someone else 'coach' or encourage violence either by threatening them if they don't become violent ("if you let somone tarnish our name, I'll whup you good!") or by telling glorious stories about violence.

But the point he makes about history is that it was more violent, and you get more of this kind of thing simply because it was more violent. In other words, kids grew up being beaten, and seeing people around them being beaten, and thus more kids became violent. Vlad only had to have a way to search out and coach those people who had already been victimized in such a way, which is a large portion of the population at that time, to find people who would be ready to do as he wished.

5. Everyone else is doing it - Sheep! Sick, but alas, happens often. Everywhere from schoolyard bullies to Polish citizens killing Jews before the Nazis got to it.

6. What can I do? I'm just one person. This goes along with number one because if you start or form a conspiracy, what is going to happen to you? But one man standing against enough people to round up and impale 40,000 people in a day isn't going to accomplish anything.

7. Shared responsibility - a study was done a while ago after a murder that was witnessed by 10 different people went completely unreported. The question asked was why if so many people saw it, did no one report it. The answer was surprising. If only one person saw it it was nearly always reported while the more people who saw it the less likely it was to be reported. Seems that everyone thought "oh well, someone else will do it" to the point that no one actually did.

8. Society at the time was quite a bit more divided. Peasants couldn't possibly communicate with someone higher than the prince, and they are probably the ones being targeted. Nobles don't give two flips about the peasants.

9. Turn a blind eye for your own benefit - this actually happened some in Nazi Germany. People would turn a blind eye when they took economic competition away. There were two pet stores, now there's one. Works well for me!

10. When society hits a certain size, we stop recognizing that other citizens are people too. I'm not sure how public this was, or how large the area was though, so I don't know how this applies.

Katy,

4. Used to it - while we are looking at the scene from 2007, they're looking at it from a time when public executions of criminals is common. The author I'm currently reading states that people don't 'just become' violent. They are victimized, then see someone else they love be victimized, and then go through this whole long process until they become victimizers themselves, which includes having someone else 'coach' or encourage violence either by threatening them if they don't become violent ("if you let somone tarnish our name, I'll whup you good!") or by telling glorious stories about violence.

I think violence is just an addictive form of behavior like sex. It has some chemical reward attached to it in the brain. People just love violence and as they indulge in it their addiction gets deeper and deeper. Even people who are victimized, or have victimized family members actually "love" the intense emotions it arouses, they find them irresistible, so they keep reliving them and experiencing them, and consequently become more violent themselves (they may never commit a violent act, but if they did they would probably realize how enjoyable it is and continue doing them). That's my theory. I can't see any other explanation for why victims become victimizers, and emotional addiction is the simplest way to explain it. So, I guess I agree with the author you are talking about.

Well, there probably isn't a chemical reward that is specifically attached to violence per se, but violence has two things going for it: one, it's an expression of power and domination; two, it's easy to perform and doesn't take any skill.

Matt,

That's not really the way I read the author, but as I think about it you might be on to something there. His basic argument seems to be that it is a choice and not "mindless" or "just snapped" even when that is what is claimed. A chemical addiction makes the choice more explicable than his work does by itself.


Also, I'm looking at wikipedia article on this guy* and it seems that he was focusing on certain cities at a time and that the land area was really fairly large. There might have been some question of belief. This was certainly the case in Poland. I read an autobiography of a Holocaust Survivor who described a feeling of "relief" when Jews were moved into ghettos because they no longer had to deal with anti-semitic neighbors. They received warning from a man of what was going on, and laughed at him. Then they received warning from another man, and laughed at him. He reports several times when he "could have left, if only we had believed"

With no electronic media or pictures, how likely would you be to believe this if just one guy that you barely even know ran into your town and said your prince had just impailed 30,000 people? I suspect my response would be "ha! Yeah right!"

It would also depend on who was the speaker. A book I read recently The Tipping Point was talking about the midnight ride of Paul Revere. Apparently there was a 2nd man who rode south while Revere rode north attempting to have the same effect. He failed miserably. The explanation given was that Revere knew who to talk to and how to talk to them. Random guy who escaped and ran for his life is not so likely to know who needs to be contacted within a new city.





*the best use of time for a schizophrenic with a severe phobia of vampires and already having a bad week to be doing at 4am!

Doing a bit more research, I came across an interesting web page over here in which Romanian citizens defend Vlad comparing him to such evildoers as Bill Clinton, Truman, the Biblical God (OK might have a point on the last one)

Clinton, is having oral sex, phone sex.. ((even if your limited intelligence does not recognize these as sex, )) with one woman while married to another... "morally good?" Is lying to a nation, your wife, indictive of "good character" Does have the president of the united states plastered in the world news because he cannot keep his dick to himself not cause you any "discomfort or repulse you" do you not find his excuse for lying (ie.. he doesn't consider it sex, he smoked but did not inhale, ) "offensive"?? Do you think that his apalling behavior, his needless bombs, his saxophone playing does not cause "harm"
by your own definition, clinton IS evil...

would i list vlad as good?? certainly not but he was no more evil than any other ruler of his day.. up to and including so called religious leaders.... and in context... his day and time to ours;; he was no more evil than clinton, judges that pass out death sentences, most cops, generals, admirals, etc... and congress...
good, evil..... the line is thin indeed.. but you cannot fairly judge a 15th century man by 20th century standards....

clintons affair with monica.. and others.. does not make him as evil as vlad his betrayal of his country.. his attempt to make us all look and feel like idiots that do not know what sex is.. does make him as evil as vlad who NEVER betrayed or lied to his people

I read the letters you had sent to you and your defence on the subject that Vlad Tepes was a completely evil man. How you make this decision without knowing the facts and completely dishonour Vlads name I don't know. You say how can a good man kill all those people, well hears an answer. This man (Vlad Tepes) grew up in a very negative place where all he heard was hate the Turks and kill them, and them with no rest. He was given up by his father to be a hostage, the entire time while being a hostage he stood up for what he believed in, what he was taught to believe in... (emphasis added)

Aside from specific quotations, the page is interesting for the sheer length of it. It seems Vlad has quite a few fans who do not look at him as evil.

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, there probably isn't a chemical reward that is specifically attached to violence per se, but violence has two things going for it: one, it's an expression of power and domination; two, it's easy to perform and doesn't take any skill.

It seems what you are saying is that killing can be an art form. For Vlad living beings were his canvas, and the sword, amongst other things, was his paint brush. To him he wasn't simply killing, he was creating a master-piece. In this case his works of art may have taken a very significant amount of skill.

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, there probably isn't a chemical reward that is specifically attached to violence per se, but violence has two things going for it: one, it's an expression of power and domination; two, it's easy to perform and doesn't take any skill.

Adrenaline
Many people develop an addiction to this.

Nick wrote:It seems what you are saying is that killing can be an art form. For Vlad living beings were his canvas, and the sword, amongst other things, was his paint brush. To him he wasn't simply killing, he was creating a master-piece. In this case his works of art may have taken a very significant amount of skill.

Yes. I found it quite interesting that he frequently made geometric designs out of his victims, often cocentric circles around the town he was punishing. Art seems to be a rather apt description.


At any rate, we know that the western vampire myths seem to have originated from Vlad, which is a form of art which originates from his evil. An interesting correlation - vlad killed with stakes and formed the basis for the vampire myths, and you kill vampires with a stake through the heart.
Oh well everyone probably figured this out before me, but I found it interesting.

Indeed, history and life itself is like an artwork to me. The endlessly strange and varied situations that were struck up in the passageways of time are fascinating. And yet, though the particular "art" that dear Tepes has created is original and interesting, it is an artwork which must be detroyed in the name of the thousands who suffered for it. And yet his existence managed to exploit, at least, earlier rather than later, the extreme lengths that human followers can go to in the name of evil. Though his ability to generate followers can be admired in a certain sense, at first glance, I beg to differ. It is much more of a skill, I believe, to run a country without corrupting the self or the state. That, to me, is truly brave and a worthy accomplishment. Shedding blood all over the place isn't too difficult if you are in such a position of power. I would have advised that Tepes should've taken up chess, the warrior game, as a hobby, but clearly, since Genghis Kahn was a grand master in chess, it is no substitute for true blood-lust!! Genghis, at least, usually attacked in the name of trade disputes. And ps: Vlad wasn't that original anyway; he learnt to impail from the Turks, who used it as punishment. Glad they got his head, though. Wonder what happened to it?

Well I hardly think chess is any kind of substitute for physical violence. The adrenaline rush and memory-stain just isn't there with a game.

And ps: Vlad wasn't that original anyway; he learnt to impail from the Turks, who used it as punishment.

Yes, there aren't too many truly original tortures over history. The question is degree and frequency. And enjoyment. As a parent might know they have to ground a child but not enjoy it, so too for leaders of states. The action itself isn't necessarily "bad" - especially put within its historical timeframe. The intent and randomness is the problem.

Glad they got his head, though. Wonder what happened to it?

Apparetly they put it in honey. Don't ask me why though.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, there probably isn't a chemical reward that is specifically attached to violence per se, but violence has two things going for it: one, it's an expression of power and domination; two, it's easy to perform and doesn't take any skill.

It seems what you are saying is that killing can be an art form. For Vlad living beings were his canvas, and the sword, amongst other things, was his paint brush. To him he wasn't simply killing, he was creating a master-piece. In this case his works of art may have taken a very significant amount of skill.

Well, I was trying to account for the phenomenon of repeatedly violent people in general, but I would throw the Impaler in that category even if he was a skilled torturer. But yeah, I suppose violence could be considered art, a performing art. If it weren't, then why would there be so many horror movies and so much violence on TV, you know?

Katy wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, there probably isn't a chemical reward that is specifically attached to violence per se, but violence has two things going for it: one, it's an expression of power and domination; two, it's easy to perform and doesn't take any skill.

Adrenaline
Many people develop an addiction to this.

Yeah, that's probably it. Another thing about violence is that it runs counter to all of our instincts of decency that it's guaranteed to affect you no matter who you are. So, even if you're bored with everything in life, there's always violence there to give you a rush.

I think it is considered an art even further than just Vlad. Serial killers often have a "calling card" of sorts that lets detectives know whether a new murder was committed by the same person or a copy-cat killer. What could be the purpose of this other than some kind of pride in one's work?

Katy wrote:I think it is considered an art even further than just Vlad. Serial killers often have a "calling card" of sorts that lets detectives know whether a new murder was committed by the same person or a copy-cat killer. What could be the purpose of this other than some kind of pride in one's work?

As I understand it, serial killers are generally acting out some particular trauma they suffered, and so the way they kill recapitulates that trauma in some way, with them in a position of power instead of victim. Or they are acting out some particular perversion.

Matt Gregory wrote:Another thing about violence is that it runs counter to all of our instincts of decency that it's guaranteed to affect you no matter who you are.

I think you have that backwards. Decency is something that is learned, not an instinct. Decency is conforming to norms of behavior that allow people to live together, and these norms vary from culture to culture. Every culture has circumstances under which it is considered acceptable to kill: taking revenge for a murder, executions by the state, killing during wartime, and so on.

There is no instinct against it, just a generally accepted notion that we are all generally better off if we don't go around killing people willy-nilly. That's why you have to have punishments when those norms are violated. Norms have to be enforced. Instincts don't need to be enforced.

Of course in "decent" people, these norms are generally so well ingrained that they feel like instincts; you don't have to think about it. You just know that it is wrong to kill.

Of course, you're right. How about "instincts of normalcy"? I think killing is universally considered an extreme form of behavior.

Edit: Yeah, I know humans don't have real instincts, but I don't know what else to call it. I think it's something that 99.999% of all humans try to instill in each other. I know I'm being lazy...I need to bail out of this conversation.

There is no instinct against it, just a generally accepted notion that we are all generally better off if we don't go around killing people willy-nilly. That's why you have to have punishments when those norms are violated. Norms have to be enforced. Instincts don't need to be enforced.

I'm actually not sure this is true. People learn to be violent through a fairly standard process. Studies of weapons found after civil war battles indicate that 12% of them were fired - and only one of the couple thousand had been fired more than 5 times. I don't think we can say that either way is instinct actually. They are both forms of learned behavior.

Also, violence is enforced, just not through the government. It may be enforced by parents, peers, etc.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:If the devil did not temporarily escape hell and pretend to be human, I have little other explanation as to the existence and actions of Vlad Tepes ( Vladimir the Impaler ). He makes Hitler and even Genghis seem "nice". This is a man who once impaled 10 000 of his own people at once for unknown reasons, once even 30 000. This is a man who rarely ate a meal without sitting next to a squirming, impaled Turk.

Not sure why you need a story so deeply steeped in myth and legend to raise the question. Humanity has known many cruel excesses throughout the ages and it ever really stopped.

Better documented examples would be:

• - mass crucifixions by the Romans (thousands at a time) while crucifixion is known to be one of the more gruesome ways to kill someone slowly and painfully (without too much work)

• - areal bombing of major cities with chemical or nuclear weapons as done in various wars by British and American airforce in the 20th century.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:How corrupt is humanity exactly or what precisely motivated these people?

You mean corruption in the ones giving such commands or the ones obeying? Or the ones letting others obey without opening their mouth? Or the ones who rather not think about it at all?

Katy wrote:I think it is considered an art even further than just Vlad

Art is a form of communication in a language the environment (including 'opponents') perhaps might understand on a deeper level. Languages evolve but the core messages haven't change much over the centuries. For example: most people live nowadays in a world of information. So horror, threats, corruption, impalement and death are often done in a shared language: information, bulletins, news, media, entertainment and so on. As long as one 'gets' the message, no need for the old fashioned style anymore. Too messy, too tiresome.

Vlad was an exceptional example.

If a nuclear bomb is all you get, you're lucky...It's a bomb. It's not some person from next door who sticks a stick into you slowly so it comes out by your mouth, for no descernable reason...much too personal for my liking. much more sadistic and packed with intentional cruelty. The sticks were intentionally left unsharpened for extra pain, and because you might die too soon from shock if a sharp object is stabbed through you.

"...and a sword may strike you a hundred times and you might still scream the hundredth time... you might even scream louder the hundredth time..." ( in reply to why I nag about "the obvious and long-standing ill nature of mankind" ). [/quote]

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:Vlad was an exceptional example.

If a nuclear bomb is all you get, you're lucky...It's a bomb. It's not some person from next door who sticks a stick into you slowly so it comes out by your mouth, for no descernable reason...much too personal for my liking. much more sadistic and packed with intentional cruelty. The sticks were intentionally left unsharpened for extra pain, and because you might die too soon from shock if a sharp object is stabbed through you.

Your impressive understanding of the specifics of impalement looks pale in comparison with your lack of understanding of bombardment by nuclear of chemical materials, on short and longer term.

It always seems like unreasonable to the victim, does it? But the most gruesome violence stems often from very deliberate reasoning. Groupthink being more often the culprit than some individual malice.

It's a matter of preference if you prefer personal treatment of rather have a faceless, nameless entity crushing you slowly. Often the big wheels of a 'system' taking care of its 'problems' - bulldozing over the small ants.

"...and a sword may strike you a hundred times and you might still scream the hundredth time... you might even scream louder the hundredth time..." ( in reply to why I nag about "the obvious and long-standing ill nature of mankind" ).

There appears to be no nature without large amounts of illness, destruction and death.

How brilliant! How marvelous! How sublime!

And how hard to say this without any traces of desire, passivity, spite or other sickness.

hey Diebert. I think the point of bombs is to kill many, and fast.
probably not meant as a sadism fest. Wanna phone George?

yes, I'd prefer a faceless, nameless entity crushing me slowly.

Yes, Diebert, you illustrated my point for me beautifully, Nature shares enough illness, destruction and death with us. Do we really need to create our own forms? Tis, perhaps, Excess, my dear, Diebert? I see you have chosen an avatar to illustrate your viewpoint for me, Dieb. Nice, I like graphics. I think we will get nowhere with this, because I detect that you consider death, destruction and illness ( sorry, wrong order ) as a normality. It's funny, though, how most professions on this earth have been developed with the aim of curing human suffering. Let's agree to disagree.

Why do people always agree to disagree, but never disagree to agree?

Erm, sorry. Continue.

because it's a saying, M G, a saying is what it is. And there will be no further argumentation. These views will seem to stand their ground for all eternity.

Vlad! Vlad! Vlad the Impaler!

Vlad, Vlad, coulda been a sailor, coulda been a tailor

He turned out to be Norman Mailer.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote: Let's agree to disagree.

I disagree with such agreement since I'm not sure if we really agree about what we are disagreeing with. [Matt must be rolling his eyes by now]

I think the point of bombs is to kill many, and fast.
probably not meant as a sadism fest.

Often many more are maimed, poisoned, buried alive or sick for life than the ones that are killed right away. It is a sadism fest but it's done via remote and without much awareness.

I'd prefer a faceless, nameless entity crushing me slowly.

You call George then :)

I detect that you consider death, destruction and illness ( sorry, wrong order ) as a normality. It's funny, though, how most professions on this earth have been developed with the aim of curing human suffering.

Normality but the form is not fixed. When saying pain and death in general is part of it all, it doesn't mean we shouldn't get medicated to keep us healthy and free of some scrutinizing pain. Pain speaks "go away", so naturally we'll attempt to care for the ones in pain. I think it's also in our nature to repair and heal. We destroy with one hand and create with the other. Hurt with one, heal with the other. To see how and when we - as group - are doing this is wisdom.

Curing the human suffering is something else in my opinion. First one has to find out what exactly the suffering is we're looking to cure. Is it more than just ignorance? And if a cure is out of reach at least some 'hygienic measures' can be offered to make existence more bearable. That's compassion.

Katy wrote: People learn to be violent through a fairly standard process. Studies of weapons found after civil war battles indicate that 12% of them were fired - and only one of the couple thousand had been fired more than 5 times. I don't think we can say that either way is instinct actually. They are both forms of learned behavior.

Katy, I think you may be referring to the following, attributed to Poughkeepsie Daily Eagle:

“On the field of Gettysburg there were 27,574 guns picked up and of those 24,000 were found to be loaded, and half of them were double loaded. One fourth had from three to ten loads in, and many had five or six balls to one charge of powder. In some cases the powder was above the ball, in others the cartridges were not broken at the end, while in one musket twenty three balls, sixty two buckshot and a quantity of powder were all mixed up together.”

These incredible statistics do not evidence to me the soldier's lack of will to fight, as you argue. They illustrate more the lack of training and fear in the face of battle. And coincidence; many men were cut down having just loaded, or before getting off their first shot.