There is probably no way to begin an argument in defense of Vlad the Impaler without sounding slightly unhinged, so let me establish the boundaries first.
I am not arguing that impalement was nice.
I am not arguing that Vlad III of Wallachia was secretly a gentle humanitarian unfairly maligned by history. I am not going to explain that it was the fifteenth century, everyone was terrible, and therefore thousands of people on stakes were simply one of those charming medieval cultural differences we ought not judge too harshly.
Vlad was brutal.
What I am arguing is that brutality is not, by itself, an explanation.
Somewhere between Vlad III becoming “Vlad the Impaler,” Vlad the Impaler becoming associated with Dracula, and Dracula becoming one of the most recognizable monsters in Western culture, we stopped seriously asking what Vlad’s violence was supposed to accomplish. The cruelty became the entire story.
He impaled people because he was cruel. How do we know he was cruel? Because he impaled people.
This is not analysis. It is a circle.
The more interesting question is what happens when we put Vlad back where he actually lived: in fifteenth-century Wallachia, facing the Ottoman Empire under Mehmed II.
Because once we do that, some of the behavior that looks like incomprehensible bloodlust starts looking disturbingly rational.
Vlad Had a Geography Problem
Wallachia was not an empire. It was a comparatively small principality occupying an extraordinarily inconvenient piece of southeastern Europe, caught in the political and military competition between larger powers.
Immediately to its south was the Ottoman Empire.
Not metaphorically. Right there.
By the time Vlad’s second reign began in 1456, Mehmed II had already conquered Constantinople. The Byzantine capital had fallen in 1453. The Ottoman state Vlad confronted was not some distant theoretical threat or neighboring kingdom of approximately equal strength. It was an expanding imperial power capable of bringing resources to bear that Wallachia simply could not match.
Vlad eventually stopped complying with Ottoman demands and openly entered into conflict with Mehmed.
That creates a fairly important problem if you are Vlad.
You cannot manufacture another Wallachia.
You cannot suddenly acquire an imperial treasury, a dramatically larger population, and an army capable of matching Ottoman forces soldier for soldier.
You have what you have.
So the strategic question becomes: “how does a small state fight a much stronger one?”
The answer is rarely, “very politely.”
You Do Not Have to Outnumber an Army if You Can Terrify It
This is where conversations about Vlad often become strangely unserious.
People describe his campaign against the Ottomans and correctly identify behavior that was obviously intended to produce terror.
Then they stop at the terror.
There was his scorched-earth strategy.
There were raids and ambushes.
There was the famous Night Attack at Târgoviște in June 1462, when Vlad launched a surprise attack against Mehmed II’s encampment and apparently attempted to reach the sultan himself. Whatever estimates one accepts for the respective forces or casualties (and those figures vary considerably) the strategic logic of striking the invading army at night is not particularly mysterious. A weaker force benefits enormously from confusion, surprise, and the temporary destruction of the stronger army’s ability to use its advantages coherently.
Then there were the stakes. The famous “forest of the impaled” has accumulated an enormous amount of legend around it. The traditional figure of approximately 20,000 victims near Târgoviște is particularly questionable. Recent research by historian Dénes Harai has argued that the enormous impalement totals repeated in hostile sources were drastically inflated and that only a fraction of the traditionally alleged numbers are plausible.
This is where I think the argument frequently goes wrong in the other direction. The significant thing is not merely whether there were 20,000 bodies, 2,000 bodies, or some other number. There were bodies.
An Ottoman chronicler who participated in the 1462 campaign personally reported seeing a field of impaled Turks. The mass display itself is historically grounded even if its legendary scale is not. Those bodies were not hidden in Vlad’s private torture garden. They were placed where an invading Ottoman army would encounter them.
That matters. A lot. Once you ask who the audience was, the function becomes obvious.
The impaled were not merely dead enemies. They were a message to the living ones.
Terror Was a Force Multiplier
Imagine being an Ottoman soldier marching through Wallachia. You are already operating in hostile territory. The enemy is avoiding the kind of conventional battle your larger force would prefer. Food and supplies are harder to obtain. Raids can come unexpectedly. Men who wander too far from the column can disappear.
Then, you encounter the remains of people captured before you. They have not simply been killed. They have been displayed. Suddenly, every rumor about the enemy acquires physical evidence. Getting separated from the army feels more dangerous.Surrender feels more dangerous. Being captured feels considerably more dangerous. The countryside itself begins to feel hostile.
Vlad has accomplished all of this without adding a single soldier to his army.
That is why I think “Vlad impaled people because Vlad was a sadist” is such a strangely inadequate explanation of his anti-Ottoman violence. Maybe he was a sadist. Human beings are perfectly capable of having several motives at once. But the terror had military utility. A weaker power cannot necessarily inflict greater physical losses than a stronger opponent.
It can sometimes inflict disproportionate psychological costs.
It can make occupation miserable.
It can make soldiers afraid to forage.
It can make every forest conceal an ambush and every missing man become a warning to everyone else.
It can create the impression that conquering this particular place is going to be much more expensive than the map suggested.
In modern language, we would recognize much of this immediately as asymmetric warfare. Vlad could not make Wallachia stronger than the Ottoman Empire. He could try to make Wallachia too unpleasant to swallow.
“But It Was Still Horrible” Is Not a Historical Analysis
At this point, someone inevitably objects that none of this makes impalement morally acceptable.
That is not the argument.
There is a peculiar habit in popular history where explaining why somebody committed an atrocity is treated suspiciously close to excusing it. Those are completely different exercises. I can believe that something is morally grotesque while also wanting to understand why a politically rational person might choose to do it.
In fact, if we refuse to do that, we make history less useful.
“Evil people do evil things because they are evil” tells us almost nothing about human behavior. It certainly tells us less than examining incentives, constraints, resources, and strategic goals.
The useful questions are separate:
Was it cruel?
Was it legal by the standards governing the conflict?
Was it morally defensible?
Was it strategically rational?
Was it effective?
Those questions can have completely different answers.
We routinely understand this distinction when discussing other forms of warfare. Bombing infrastructure can be strategically rational while morally controversial. A blockade can make military sense while inflicting terrible civilian suffering. Scorched-earth warfare can deny resources to an invading army while being catastrophic for the population whose land is being destroyed. Nobody has to approve of those methods to understand what they are intended to accomplish.
Vlad deserves the same analytical treatment.
Not Everything Vlad Did Fits This Defense
There is also a limit to the argument, and it is important.
Vlad’s violence was not directed exclusively at invading Ottoman armies.
He used extreme punishments against domestic opponents. He fought vicious political struggles involving Wallachian boyars. He conducted campaigns against Saxon communities and merchants in Transylvania. Some of these episodes belong much more to consolidation of power, retaliation, and internal political violence than to asymmetric defense against the Ottoman Empire.
There is no reason to take every corpse attributed to Vlad and place it beneath the convenient heading of “national defense.” Nor should we. A defense that requires pretending inconvenient evidence does not exist is not much of a defense.
The point is narrower.
When evaluating Vlad’s anti-Ottoman campaign, the strategic context is indispensable.
Yet, it is routinely treated as a footnote to the spectacle.
His Reputation Has Another Problem: His Enemies Could Print
There is a second complication.
Vlad had enemies. Quite a lot of them. Some of those enemies participated in one of Europe’s most consequential technological developments: the rapidly expanding world of printed pamphlets.
German stories about Vlad circulated sensational accounts of his cruelty, often accompanied by grotesque imagery. That does not mean the atrocities were fabricated wholesale. Independent evidence confirms that Vlad really did use impalement.
The numbers in hostile accounts can be wildly inconsistent.
Harai’s recent reassessment points to one especially revealing example: one German source claimed that Vlad impaled 600 merchants in an episode in 1459, while another placed the number at 41. Similar numerical inflation appears elsewhere in the tradition.
This is not a small historiographical issue.It means Vlad possessed two qualities practically engineered to produce a legendary monster.
First, he deliberately cultivated terror.
Second, his enemies had every incentive to publicize it.
Vlad wanted the Ottoman soldier approaching Wallachia to have heard frightening stories about him. His political enemies wanted Europeans hundreds of miles away to hear frightening stories about him. Both groups benefited from the same reputation for completely different reasons.
Five centuries later, we inherited the reputation without always remembering who produced it.
Then Dracula Happened
Popular memory eventually performed another transformation. Vlad Drăculea became entangled with Count Dracula.
The relationship between the historical prince and Bram Stoker’s vampire is much less direct than pop culture generally suggests. Stoker encountered the name “Dracula” in his research, but the idea that Count Dracula was essentially a fictionalized Vlad III was substantially developed and popularized much later.
Nevertheless, the association stuck. Once a historical figure becomes culturally adjacent to an immortal blood-drinking aristocrat, nuanced military history is fighting an uphill battle. The vampire reinforces the warlord. The warlord authenticates the vampire. Eventually, Vlad stops being a prince navigating an exceptionally dangerous geopolitical environment and becomes something closer to a medieval serial killer who happened to possess an army.
Which is a much simpler story. It is also a less interesting one.
The Case for Vlad Is Not That Vlad Was Good
I do not think the serious case for Vlad the Impaler is that he has been completely misunderstood.
He has been understood incompletely.
He really was extraordinarily violent.
He really did impale enemies.
He deliberately created spectacles of punishment designed to frighten people.
Perhaps that last sentence deserves to be read differently than it usually is.
He deliberately created spectacles of punishment designed to frighten people.
Because Vlad III was facing a political and military reality in which fear was one of the few resources he could produce more cheaply than the Ottoman Empire. Mehmed II could field more men. He could command greater resources. He could replace losses more easily. He governed an empire that had recently taken Constantinople.
Vlad had Wallachia.
So Vlad weaponized something else. Uncertainty. Terrain. Surprise. Night. Reputation. Horror. There is a tendency to imagine psychological warfare as somehow more modern and sophisticated when it involves radio broadcasts, propaganda leaflets or carefully coordinated information operations.
Put several thousand mutilated corpses beside the road and suddenly we stop recognizing communication because the medium offends us.
The message is still there.
If you come here, this is what awaits you.
That does not make Vlad humane. It makes him comprehensible. Perhaps that is the real case for Vlad the Impaler. Not that history owes him an acquittal. History is not a courtroom, and five centuries later we are in no position to issue one anyway.
It does owe him something better than a caricature. Vlad III was not merely a madman who discovered an unusually unpleasant way to kill people. He was the ruler of a vulnerable principality confronting one of the most formidable empires of his age. He could not make himself bigger.
So he made himself frightening.
Leave a Reply