Braveheart Vs Vlad the Impaler

[Michael the Great]

Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)

[Knight_Yellow]

Braveheart.


hes Scottish.


and without him god only knows what scotland would have been like.

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 02 2004,16:31)]Braveheart.


hes Scottish.


and without him god only knows what scotland would have been like.
Not much really,cept scotland fell much earlier i suppose.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif


grrrrrrrrrrrr


-----------------------------------------------------------



Becoming british actualy turned out sweet.


we became 1/4 of the greatest empire in history and still got to keep our national identity.

[DemonArchangel]

Willam Wallace wielded a 72 inch long claymore
Vlad Didn't

Winner: Wallace

[kataphraktoi]

Vlad II was a more resourceful and excellent strategist than Wallace.

He held off one of the greatest Muslim Empires in history and one of the greatest powers in the Middle Ages with the resources that he had sandwiched between two warring powers and the political intrigue which threatened his rule. The armies he faced were greater than the English army at that time and far more deadlier as well.

Established a ruthless reputation far more ruthless than Wallace by his systematic impalement of victims putting fear even in Mehmed the Conqueror (he of Constantinople fame).

Stakes down, Vlad.

Vlad would impale his schilitrons anyday.

[Voigtkampf]

If one on one, I go for Mel…

[spmetla]

Vlad for me. William Wallace didn't have so great/infamous a reputation that it spawned horror stories about him and made him the icon for modern day vampiric cult followings,

William Wallace wasn't too well known by most of the world until a historically inaccurate film (Stirling bridge without a bridge) was made about him. Vlad the Impaler is almost universally known, and if someone doesn't know him by that just explain by saying Dracula and they'll know.

Vlad impaled people, Wallace didn't do it, or if he did he didn't do it on a large enough scale.

[Lazul]

Well the only Wallace i know of is that damned Mel and his stupid movie.

Vlad on the other hand was just plain evil, I mean if you go down in history as Vlad the Impaler you have to have done some really bad stuff http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I have to go with Vlad, thanx to that idiot Mel.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Vlad all the way. Brave geezer all told, especially his surprise cavalry charge against the Ottoman encampment which nearly captured the sultan.

[Theodoret]

It has to be Vlad.

William Wallace wasn't even really Scottish, he was a Norman nobleman, and he was fighting on behalf of a Norman-Scots King who had brought on war with England by breaking the promises he had made to Edward I (who had helped him gain the throne in the first place). Wallace's only interest was personal gain. The Mel Gibson version of history is just romanticised rubbish.

Vlad on the other hand really was fighting for independance, and to save his countrymen from a cruel and rapacious foe. Okay, so maybe Vlad wasn't very merciful, but then again neither were the Turks. Vlad was also a better general than Wallace, and a far better politician.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Theodoret @ Jan. 03 2004,10:15)]Vlad was also a better general than Wallace, and a far better politician.
I agree except this statement,I really don't think Vlad was a far more better tactician than Wallace?
I mean I just need some arguments to believe that...

[Gallowglass]

Quote[/b] (Theodoret @ Jan. 03 2004,10:15)]It has to be Vlad.

William Wallace wasn't even really Scottish, he was a Norman nobleman, and he was fighting on behalf of a Norman-Scots King who had brought on war with England by breaking the promises he had made to Edward I (who had helped him gain the throne in the first place). Wallace's only interest was personal gain. The Mel Gibson version of history is just romanticised rubbish.

Vlad on the other hand really was fighting for independance, and to save his countrymen from a cruel and rapacious foe. Okay, so maybe Vlad wasn't very merciful, but then again neither were the Turks. Vlad was also a better general than Wallace, and a far better politician.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Where did you get the idea that Wallace was not fighting for independance and only fought for himself? Read this gem of information.

Date May 1297.
Place Mill of Fullarton. On the River Irvine. Ayrshire.
Recorded by Walter Bower in the ‘Scotichronicon.’ And other historical records in the University libraries of Scotland and Oxford.

The Speaker, William Wallace in the days before he was knighted.

He is addressing a gathering of the great and Powerful Nobles and Knights from SW Scotland. They had gathered together to discuss a truce with a superior English army. William Wallace would have none of it. His speech has been recorded and translated from the Latin.

There has been an acrimonious argument between Wallace and some of the Nobles and Bishop Wishart. He opens by apologising to Bishop Wishart :

‘I regret, my lord Bishop, if I spoke ill. But - - it may be that I speak for other than do you. You all. You my lord speak for Holy Church. And these noble lords - - who do they speak for? Themselves. Their lands. The Power of the Realm. But who speaks for the folk of Scotland, my lords? Does any here? The Folk. The Nation. This Scotland is more than a realm, my friends - - it is a nation. A people, an ancient people. A people that has been betrayed and sold and spurned. All but forgotten by those that seek the power. But it is the people who will pay for what is decided this day, the people who will be ground under the heel of the tyrant. You Lords, I swear, will survive, whoever rules Even if Scotland is no more, you will still be lords. But not the common folk. Not the Scots. Do you ever think of them my lords? I, for want of a better, must be their spokesman this day.’

What a crap politician he was. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Also for your information, Wallace wasn't a Norman nobleman. He was younger son of a minor knight and small landowner. How much influence his family had in Scotland was shown when Edward I conquered Scotland, over 2000 names of all men of worth in the kingdom (nobles, knights and landowners) were recorded in the Ragman Roll. All persons in it were those who were persuaded to accept Longshank's lordship. Wallace's father wasn't even on the list. It is obvious that he wasn't considered that important.

The best that could have been said is while Wallace was not strickly a commoner, he was the next thing to it. I have always found it amazing that with his background, he became the military leader in a national revolt. In a medieval world where the Great Chain of Being existed, when everything had its natural place and order, it certainly was some achievement. It was because of this that explained the downright antipathy of the Scottish nobility (who, by all rights, ought to have been fulfilling his shoes) and the near-paranoid determination of Edward I to bring him to the scaffold.

I am also curious to know where you got the idea that Wallace wasn't really Scottish? He was born and raised in Scotland. If it is name Wallace (Welshman) you are on about please don't follow that analogy that his ancester must have came from Wales. Wallace was a common name in the west of Scotland through the old British kingdom of Strachclyde which fell to the Scots in the 11th Century. Welsh was widely spoken by the inhabitants of this area until the 1300s. It is much more likely he got his surname through his forebears, who still continued to speak Welsh while Gaelic and English (which was still a minority language in Scotland until the 16th Century) took over.

While it is true that Wallace fought in the name of the exiled King John. It didn't matter to Wallace what Toom Tabard (that nice name which King John is known to us Scots today) had done and his poor qualities as a king. He was considered the true and rightful king and that was what mattered to Wallace.

The only thing I agree with your post is that the film Braveheart was a load of overblown historical crap. When I watched it the first time I was half expecting the Loch Ness Monster to make an appearance.

[DemonArchangel]

The 72 inch long sword really DID exist, it's in a museum somewhere

Vlad is bitching though, you gotta admit that.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

He was known as welsh william that is definetly true.

[Gallowglass]

Quote[/b] (DemonArchangel @ Jan. 03 2004,18:46)]The 72 inch long sword really DID exist, it's in a museum somewhere
It is in the Wallace Monument, outside Stirling. Check out the link below.

Go Here (http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/stirling/wallace/)

[kataphraktoi]

I meant tactician/strategist in the wider sense, not in terms of pitched battles or anything like that.

My bad for not putting it specifically.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 03 2004,01:20)]we became 1/4 of the greatest empire in history and still got to keep our national identity.
Oh, so you became Roman huh? cool. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Date May 1297.
Place Mill of Fullarton. On the River Irvine. Ayrshire.
Recorded by Walter Bower in the ‘Scotichronicon.’ And other historical records in the University libraries of Scotland and Oxford.

The Speaker, William Wallace in the days before he was knighted.

He is addressing a gathering of the great and Powerful Nobles and Knights from SW Scotland. They had gathered together to discuss a truce with a superior English army. William Wallace would have none of it. His speech has been recorded and translated from the Latin.

There has been an acrimonious argument between Wallace and some of the Nobles and Bishop Wishart. He opens by apologising to Bishop Wishart :

‘I regret, my lord Bishop, if I spoke ill. But - - it may be that I speak for other than do you. You all. You my lord speak for Holy Church. And these noble lords - - who do they speak for? Themselves. Their lands. The Power of the Realm. But who speaks for the folk of Scotland, my lords? Does any here? The Folk. The Nation. This Scotland is more than a realm, my friends - - it is a nation. A people, an ancient people. A people that has been betrayed and sold and spurned. All but forgotten by those that seek the power. But it is the people who will pay for what is decided this day, the people who will be ground under the heel of the tyrant. You Lords, I swear, will survive, whoever rules Even if Scotland is no more, you will still be lords. But not the common folk. Not the Scots. Do you ever think of them my lords? I, for want of a better, must be their spokesman this day.’

What a crap politician he was.

Also for your information, Wallace wasn't a Norman nobleman. He was younger son of a minor knight and small landowner. How much influence his family had in Scotland was shown when Edward I conquered Scotland, over 2000 names of all men of worth in the kingdom (nobles, knights and landowners) were recorded in the Ragman Roll. All persons in it were those who were persuaded to accept Longshank's lordship. Wallace's father wasn't even on the list. It is obvious that he wasn't considered that important.

The best that could have been said is while Wallace was not strickly a commoner, he was the next thing to it. I have always found it amazing that with his background, he became the military leader in a national revolt. In a medieval world where the Great Chain of Being existed, when everything had its natural place and order, it certainly was some achievement. It was because of this that explained the downright antipathy of the Scottish nobility (who, by all rights, ought to have been fulfilling his shoes) and the near-paranoid determination of Edward I to bring him to the scaffold.

I am also curious to know where you got the idea that Wallace wasn't really Scottish? He was born and raised in Scotland. If it is name Wallace (Welshman) you are on about please don't follow that analogy that his ancester must have came from Wales. Wallace was a common name in the west of Scotland through the old British kingdom of Strachclyde which fell to the Scots in the 11th Century. Welsh was widely spoken by the inhabitants of this area until the 1300s. It is much more likely he got his surname through his forebears, who still continued to speak Welsh while Gaelic and English (which was still a minority language in Scotland until the 16th Century) took over.

While it is true that Wallace fought in the name of the exiled King John. It didn't matter to Wallace what Toom Tabard (that nice name which King John is known to us Scots today) had done and his poor qualities as a king. He was considered the true and rightful king and that was what mattered to Wallace.

The only thing I agree with your post is that the film Braveheart was a load of overblown historical crap. When I watched it the first time I was half expecting the Loch Ness Monster to make an appearance.
You're completelly right about this.
Wallace = Norman??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Jan. 04 2004,01:49)]I meant tactician/strategist in the wider sense, not in terms of pitched battles or anything like that.

My bad for not putting it specifically.
Oh...now I C http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Longshanks]

I voted for Vlad the Impaler. IMO his accomplishments as a military commander were much more impressive. While leading a nation a tiny fraction of the size of the Ottoman Empire, he humiliated the Turks for years as well as defeating rival Wallachian nobles. He was one the first European leaders to effectively use muskets on the battlefield. He also initially defeated an invading Turkish army 3 times larger than his own through ambushes, skillful use of terrain, scorched earth, and psychological warfare. Vlad emptied his dungeons of Turks he had captured, and had them impaled on stakes surrounding his capital. The sight of 20,000 men impaled on stakes was the final death blow to the invading force. It turned tail and fled for home.

After defeating the Turks, he was deposed by his own brother Radu, who rallied discontented boyars against Vlad. Radu was supported by the Turks and set up as a puppet ruler while Vlad fled to the court of Matthias Corvinus, the king of Hungary. Initially he was imprisoned by Matthias, as a diplomatic gesture to the new prince of Wallachia, Radu, and the Ottoman Empire. Even as a prisoner though Vlad proved his prowess through clever scheming. Over the course of a decade he managed to not only scheme his way out of prison but to ingratiate himself to Corvinus. Eventually he became a trusted advisor, and married one of Matthias' cousins.

By this time relations with Radu had taken a serious downturn, and Vlad was given a military command when Matthias and the Prince of Moldavia, Steven the Great allied to confront the Turks. Vlad not only reclaimed the throne of Wallachia but pushed deep into Bosnia, defeating the Turks and sacking the cities of Sabac, Srebenica, Zwornik and Kuslat. Most of his forces though were Moldavian or Hungarian, and they returned to their homes after defeating the Turks. He would eventually be defeated, and slain when the Turks re-invaded, but I don't think that detracts from his prowess as a military commander. He was facing a Turkish force numbering in the tens of thousands, and he only had about 2,000 men left to face them with.

On to William Wallace:

He was defeated quite convincingly by Longshanks at Falkirk. If compared to Vlad the Impaler, Wallace didn't face as formidable an opponent. While Longshanks was an outstanding military commander(and superior to Wallace), the English force assembled at Falkirk was about 10,000 strong, and consisted mostly of mercenaries and foreign conscripts. The cream of the English Army was busy in France. Wallace was outnumbered, but facing 2 to 1 odds. He lost, while Vlad had triumphed when outnumbered by 3 to 1 odds and facing 1st rate troops. As a son of royalty Vlad also would have had a greater exposure to formal military training than Wallace. Vlad also benefited from being a hostage of the Turkish court during his teenaged years. No doubt his strategic and tactical acumen were greatly influenced by these years, when he would have had exposure to Turkish military thinking.

If the legends about Wallace being 6 foot 7 are true, maybe he would have an edge in personal combat. Vlad the Impaler was no slouch in personal combat however. In one battle he engaged a rival noble, Vandislas, in personal combat and lopped off his head.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 05 2004,01:43)]If the legends about Wallace being 6 foot 7 are true, maybe he would have an edge in personal combat. Vlad the Impaler was no slouch in personal combat however. In one battle he engaged a rival noble, Vandislas, in personal combat and lopped off his head.
Where did u read that?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[MiniKiller]

wallace. stronger, fought with more heart.

[Gallowglass]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 05 2004,01:43)]On to William Wallace:

He was defeated quite convincingly by Longshanks at Falkirk. If compared to Vlad the Impaler, Wallace didn't face as formidable an opponent. While Longshanks was an outstanding military commander(and superior to Wallace), the English force assembled at Falkirk was about 10,000 strong, and consisted mostly of mercenaries and foreign conscripts. The cream of the English Army was busy in France. Wallace was outnumbered, but facing 2 to 1 odds. He lost, while Vlad had triumphed when outnumbered by 3 to 1 odds and facing 1st rate troops. As a son of royalty Vlad also would have had a greater exposure to formal military training than Wallace. Vlad also benefited from being a hostage of the Turkish court during his teenaged years. No doubt his strategic and tactical acumen were greatly influenced by these years, when he would have had exposure to Turkish military thinking.

If the legends about Wallace being 6 foot 7 are true, maybe he would have an edge in personal combat. Vlad the Impaler was no slouch in personal combat however. In one battle he engaged a rival noble, Vandislas, in personal combat and lopped off his head.
Emm...what are you on about?

Outwith the Welsh soldiers (who Edward had always used extensively in all his fighting campaigns) the only foreign soldiers were crossbowmen from Gascony. The vast majority of his troops were Englishmen raised when he planted the Royal standard at York the year before.

During the battle of Falkirk, Longshanks had 2500 horse and 12,000 foot with him to fight the Scots. If you didn't know, Edward I made peace with the French at the beginning of 1298 and so was able to take much of his forces home with him. The cream of his army wasn't busy in France. His army at Falkirk would have been made up veterans of his French campaigns.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe Edward I came up north with a scratch force of conscripts and mercenaries against a foe that convincingly destroyed one of his armies at Stirling Bridge. At Stirling Bridge, Wallace won against a general that defeated the Scots previously at Dunbar. I doubt Longshanks took Wallace lightly.

Also at Falkirk, Wallace wasn't defeated as convincingly as you claim. The Scots repelled three English cavalry charges before Longshanks had the wit to use his longbowmen. No army could have withstood that in the end. What would have been the defence?

The funny thing about the battle of Falkirk is that Wallace's newly developed weapon, the schiltron, was used to great effect against cavalry. His use of it led to the first time in over 100 years or so, of a cavalry charge being repulsed by mere infantry.

The other funny thing was that the English also had a weapon, at the very same time, which led to the schiltron being useless: The longbow. The battle of Falkirk was its first major trial.

I wouldn't really say that Wallace was a military failure. He was just unlucky. The longbow used against his army in that way must have been the equivalent, in modern terms, of napalm being used for the first time.

[Nowake]

Of course, Vlad has my vote.


Just to add to the numerous tidbits of information scattered all over this thread: did you know that the ottoman infantry had to coroborate its actions with the ones of its artillery in order to get through with crossing the Danube when moving against the romanian voievode? It is for the first time in history when we see this kind of a combined arms team: artillery and infantry at a river crossing. Things happened actually like that: the turks could not cross the Danube because Vlad had burned all the ships available and was pursuing them with his cavalry from the other bank. After several failures, the ottomans decided to try a risky game: they've sent a strong group of elite janissaries and around 20-30 cannons on the other side at the cover of night, while simulating a crossing farther away. The janissaries managed to gain a foothold, and entrench in their position along with the cannons. Vlad soon discovered the trickery and after a bitter and ferocious cavalry attack, he decided to retreat in order to avoid further losses. The rest you already know. What you can't help admire is the way Vlad covered the enourmous front line of the Danube with only several thousands of light cavalry, but also the inteligent and extremly modern tactic the turks used against him. Vlad's decision of retreat was right and the way he later conducted the campaign sais it all.


And now, a small story: it is said that when some turkish emissaries came to Vlad with word from the sultan, they neglected to uncover their heads in front of the voievode. When he asked them for the reason, they explained that this is a religious necesity and that they keep their turbans even in front of the great ottoman sultan. Vlad aproved and then ordered his men to pinn the turbans to the emissaries heads with nails. Which they did .. only one was left alive to deliver the message.


Wallace was a brave scotman, but the english army of the century would have been piece meal for the ottomans: remember Varna in AD 1444. In eastern Europe the cannon was used quite widely in comparison in all armies, the tactics ad the military potential was far greater. Btw, I saw someone stating that Vlad had no more than 2.000 raiders: this is untrue, he managed to raise up to 20.000 wallachians, and believe me, each and every romanian peasant knew how to fight.

[kataphraktoi]

Longshanks (the MTW member) in a nutshell:

- The Ottomans were more formidable than the English were in their respective time period. The Turks were out for conquest of Europe; the English, suppressing a rebellion.

- Vlad utilised his resources with strategic and tactical acumen with maximum results in the various - but important - fields of psychology, politics and the battlefield.

- A political leader who held off the Turks with one hand while keeping his throne against the nobles closer at hand.

- His campaigns against the Turks were much more meaningful in the face of the Turkish advance as opposed to Wallace's mild sabre-rattling.

- Vlad inspired true fear as opposed to Wallace's annoying brigandage and insubordination to England.

LS makes some very strong points. Its hard to get past Vlad's excellent broad vision in the frontline of Christendom's eastern frontier as opposed to Wallace's fight for independence.

[Mega Dux Bob]

Ya' got to go with the Impaler; he was up against much more serious opposition than Wallace ever was and did pretty well.

[Michael the Great]

The problem is that most people around here know Vlad the Impaler as the only romanian figure,the thing which they don't know is that the romanians had a much greater general/tactician/strategist and diplomat than Vlad would have ever been...he ruled 1593-1601....he was the first to accomplish the dream of uniting Wallachia,Moldavia and Transylvania in one state,this,of course,would of been in the mind of each romanian voyvode,but only in his time period the political context permited it.
Oh,and BTW I'm with Wallace all the way on this one(And his damn scotts&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Guthwyn]

Well, I don't know as much about history as some people here, so I can't comment on "historical fact". I think some of you have covered that quite well. However, both the real William Wallace and Vlad Tepes are long dead, so the only really relevant question is this: who would win in a fight, Mel Gibson or Gary Oldman? With a concerted effort by Org members, we may actually be able organize this epic battle, and see it to its conclusion. Personally, Mel is a lot more "buff" than Gary, but Gary seems like he may be a little crazier, and be able to summon crazy-man strength. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Guthwyn

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Jan. 06 2004,09:42)]Longshanks is a nutshell
Very very true.
Also,I loved the movie Braveheart,and I think it had a great effect on how ppl view the historical figure of William Wallace(even though in reality it's probable he wasn't anywhere near the movie).

[kataphraktoi]

Quote[/b] ]Longshanks is a nutshell

Hey thats evil.

Hey Miko, got any pics of Romanian warriors?

[TheSilverKnight]

*comes in playing bagpipes* who d'ya think I'd pick??


































WALLACE OF COURSE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Jan. 08 2004,20:48)]Hey Miko, got any pics of Romanian warriors?
Well not right now,but u COULD look at my avatar and see one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 07 2004,00:08)]The problem is that most people around here know Vlad the Impaler as the only romanian figure,the thing which they don't know is that the romanians had a much greater general/tactician/strategist and diplomat than Vlad would have ever been...he ruled 1593-1601....he was the first to accomplish the dream of uniting Wallachia,Moldavia and Transylvania in one state,this,of course,would of been in the mind of each romanian voyvode,but only in his time period the political context permited it.
Oh,and BTW I'm with Wallace all the way on this one(And his damn scotts&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
It seems odd, isn't it? To start a thread about Vlad the Impaler and then have everyone talking about it, instead of Michael the Brave? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Well, of course, he was a great voievode, as well as Mircea the Old, Alexander the Good, Stephan the Great, Petru Rares, and many, many others, esspecially in the XVth century, like Dan II etc. But you can't deny Vlad's acomplishments and you should agree that he was superior to Wallace, who managed to surprise some english garrisons and defeat the outnumbered and foolishly led baronial army at Stirling. "Braveheart" was a mockery of real history, I think everyone agrees. Vlad had smart, veteran opponents, the turks that defeated so many feudal european armies, the janissaries are the first professional army corps in Europe.

[Michael the Great]

Hehe,well it is kinda odd,but hey,Vlad was facing huge odds,but his achievements don't seem so important,I mean what did he do to Wallachia that's so important?(Other than impaling thoulsands of ppl)?

[Fragony]

Why Vlad of course. He put people on pikes,william didn't.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Fragony @ Jan. 10 2004,08:44)]He put people on pikes,William didn't.
Good 'point' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Gallowglass]

Quote[/b] (Fragony @ Jan. 10 2004,08:44)]Why Vlad of course. He put people on pikes,william didn't.
Well, Wallace flayed the corpse of an English commander at Stirling Bridge and turned his skin into a scabbard for his sword.

[Fragony]

Quote[/b] (Gallowglass @ Jan. 11 2004,17:15)]
Quote[/b] (Fragony @ Jan. 10 2004,08:44)]Why Vlad of course. He put people on pikes,william didn't.
Well, Wallace flayed the corpse of an English commander at Stirling Bridge and turned his skin into a scabbard for his sword.
No he didn't. William Wallace was a noble man that was just pissed of that they killed his cutesmiling sexslave. Before you want to debate this with me I must warn you that I have seen braveheart. WTF what bridge olol? You need to go back to school boy

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 10 2004,14:32)]Hehe,well it is kinda odd,but hey,Vlad was facing huge odds,but his achievements don't seem so important,I mean what did he do to Wallachia that's so important?(Other than impaling thoulsands of ppl)?
Hey, Michael, read more about 1456-1459 period .. he took lots of administrative measures during that time, and secured Wallachia while containing the power of the boyars. After that, he was in a perpetuous state of conflict.

[Gallowglass]

Quote[/b] (Fragony @ Jan. 11 2004,19:34)]
Quote[/b] (Gallowglass @ Jan. 11 2004,17:15)]
Quote[/b] (Fragony @ Jan. 10 2004,08:44)]Why Vlad of course. He put people on pikes,william didn't.
Well, Wallace flayed the corpse of an English commander at Stirling Bridge and turned his skin into a scabbard for his sword.
No he didn't. William Wallace was a noble man that was just pissed of that they killed his cutesmiling sexslave. Before you want to debate this with me I must warn you that I have seen braveheart. WTF what bridge olol? You need to go back to school boy
Yes sir

You are obviously right. I have seen the error of my ways and must praise Hollywood. All hail masterful Mel Gibson. FREEDOM

*lifts his kilt and bares his bum to the English/Southron/Sassenach hordes.*

[Lazul]

Maybe we should have a poll, For and Against Mel Gibson =)
I think that atleast all the english ppl would vote against him. English ppl are allways the bad guys in his movies... or atleast 2 of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Jan. 12 2004,01:41)]Hey, Michael, read more about 1456-1459 period .. he took lots of administrative measures during that time, and secured Wallachia while containing the power of the boyars. After that, he was in a perpetuous state of conflict.
Oh,sorry I think it's because of my 'lack' of information about te respective period.Also this dude(Vlad) is believed to have taken part in the siege in Constantinople and in the battle of Vaslui(1475) when moldavian voivode Stephen the Great defeated a huge turkish invading force... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Nowake]

Hey, Michael, have you read "Caderea Constantinopolelui" by Vintila Corbul? He talks about Vlad there, of course, is only a novel. I don't know about the second part, I think he was in Serbia fighting the turks there in 1475 (but hey, anything is possible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif)


Btw Michael, have you considered joining Europa Barbarorum? I really would need another romanian around there, if you have knowledge on the dacians.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Jan. 14 2004,10:18)]Hey, Michael, have you read "Caderea Constantinopolelui" by Vintila Corbul? He talks about Vlad there, of course, is only a novel. I don't know about the second part, I think he was in Serbia fighting the turks there in 1475 (but hey, anything is possible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif)


Btw Michael, have you considered joining Europa Barbarorum? I really would need another romanian around there, if you have knowledge on the dacians.
Oh,he got me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif
Well yes I did read it,and found this kinda hard 2 believe...also there are much greater chances that he was in 1475 in Stephen the Great's army than being in Constantinople in 1453(BTW Vintila Corbul is one of my fav writers).
C'ya
*Goes 2 see what's this Europa Barbarorum all about....*
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wacko.gif

[Nowake]

Mine also, Michael, or at least he was .. Of course, not his early writings (horrible style) but the ones like "Dinastia Sunderland-Beauclair" and "Pasari de prada", or "Uragan deasupra Europei". Of course, these were good books for in my 12-13, now his style seems as too simple.

[kataphraktoi]

I'm a barbarian stuck in the dusty annals of history. I have made no lasting raids, conquests, devastation or anything bad and evil.

However, I did become civilised when I started farming. I realised killing all the animals was not a wise thing to do. My stake fetish has become the fall of the barbarian formerly known as Kataklysmic.

Civilisation is boring.

The end.

[Nowake]

Bore happends .. if you live long enough .. so tirants are good at some point.


Q.E.D.

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Jan. 15 2004,11:33)]Bore happends .. if you live long enough .. so tirants are good at some point.


Q.E.D.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[The Wizard]

Vlad's struggly and subsequent (yet short-lived) victory were greater than Wallace's. I'm not sure, but I think his victories were more lasting than those of Wallace too.

Besides, Vlad was a genuine badass http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[kiwitt]

I saw the new Video "Vlad" recently, it did mention his accomplishments briefly. I suppose losing ones family would drive many mad with revenge. He did well stopping the Moslem advance into the heart of Europe.

Hmmmm. Here's a thought. No Vlad then there would be no Hitler as the Moslems would control Germany. No Hitler, no holocaust. No Holocaust, no reason for the formation of Israel. No Israel, No Israli-Arab wars. Hmmm...indeed

[vlad_demstra]

Quote[/b] ] saw the new Video "Vlad" recently, it did mention his accomplishments briefly. I suppose losing ones family would drive many mad with revenge. He did well stopping the Moslem advance into the heart of Europe.

Hmmmm. Here's a thought. No Vlad then there would be no Hitler as the Moslems would control Germany. No Hitler, no holocaust. No Holocaust, no reason for the formation of Israel. No Israel, No Israli-Arab wars. Hmmm...indeed

wtf does vlad have to do with hitlar?

[kiwitt]

What I wanted to show was Vlad was a more significant figure then Braveheart. His existence had more impact on the outcome of History then Braveheart. I could have also mentioned Stalin, Bismark, Napoleon or Prince Ferdinand or other significant figures from Europe who may not have existed had the Moslems stormed across Europe.

Hitler was just an example of these, and one chain of events that could have followed.

Note the question was "Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)" and I thought I should give my reason between the two.

[vlad_demstra]

vlad impaled the turks and his own to bring justice and peace. hitlar killed people out of anger and hate of that race. IMO

[kiwitt]

I agree.

However, if you replace Hitlar(sic) with Bismark and include the same chain of events, I was only comparing Vlad with Braveheart and Historical Impacts. The Moslems controlling Europe would have been a real major event had that occurred. Note: El Cid did his part in Spain, some time earlier too

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (kiwitt @ Jan. 19 2004,19:47)]What I wanted to show was Vlad was a more significant figure then Braveheart. His existence had more impact on the outcome of History then Braveheart. I could have also mentioned Stalin, Bismark, Napoleon or Prince Ferdinand or other significant figures from Europe who may not have existed had the Moslems stormed across Europe.

Hitler was just an example of these, and one chain of events that could have followed.

Note the question was "Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)" and I thought I should give my reason between the two.
You're assuming that Hungary, Austria, and the Holy Roman Empire couldn't have stopped the Ottomans, which is exactly what happened

First of all, look at a map; you don't have to take Wallachia to get to Western Europe, in fact its out of your way. Straight up the Danube through Hungary and into Austria is the route the Turks took. And "Hunyadi" Hungary, the real obstacle to Turkish expansion during Vlad's life, didn't fall until after his death.

Even after Hungary fell (1526), the Hapsburgs gobbled up half of it, despite Turkish opposition. The Turks were unable to take Vienna, and after the last siege (1683), the armies of Austria and the Empire (Bavaria, Lorraine, Saxony, Baden, etc.) swept into Hungary, smashed the Turks in numerous battles over the next century, took the rest of Hungary, and even pressed into the Balkans.

Vlad's accomplishments may have been important within the Romanian lands, but their effect on the rest of Europe was negligible. It was the Austrian Hapsburgs that stopped the drive into Europe and then carried the war to the Turks. Whether or not Vlad even existed had no influence on the later careers of Bismarck, Napoleon, etc.

[The Wizard]

Maybe, but you cannot deny that Vlad's struggle was an amazing one, and that he did it quite well.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Jan. 22 2004,16:12)]Maybe, but you cannot deny that Vlad's struggle was an amazing one, and that he did it quite well.
I don't deny that. Obviously, he's a national hero and legendary/mythical figure for a good reason.

I was replying specifically to the "Europe would've been Muslim if not for him" stuff. The Turks could only have threatened Europe had they managed to conquer Austria; and even if they had, the Archduke of Austria was also German Emperor, which meant that if the situation became critical (as in 1683), the German Princes would march to his aid.

So it was the German armies of Austria & the Empire that really kept Europe from being subjected by the Ottomans...although I mean no disrespect to Vlad or Romania by saying so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kiwitt]

Plantagenet: Your knowledge of "real" history is great.

I have got a sore tongue now from biting it.

Now where did I put that History book ... Brushing aside stacks of Movie magazines.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (kiwitt @ Jan. 22 2004,17:54)]Plantagenet: Your knowledge of "real" history is great.

I have got a sore tongue now from biting it.

Now where did I put that History book ... Brushing aside stacks of Movie magazines.
Don't bite your tongue. Look it up and get back to me.

Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anybody...

[kiwitt]

History books, they are never where you expect them to be.
Ah that's right. It's holding up the shoddy Video table.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 22 2004,23:43)]
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Jan. 22 2004,16:12)]Maybe, but you cannot deny that Vlad's struggle was an amazing one, and that he did it quite well.
I don't deny that. Obviously, he's a national hero and legendary/mythical figure for a good reason.

I was replying specifically to the "Europe would've been Muslim if not for him" stuff. The Turks could only have threatened Europe had they managed to conquer Austria; and even if they had, the Archduke of Austria was also German Emperor, which meant that if the situation became critical (as in 1683), the German Princes would march to his aid.

So it was the German armies of Austria & the Empire that really kept Europe from being subjected by the Ottomans...although I mean no disrespect to Vlad or Romania by saying so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yes, I was not attempting to 'diss' you for it. You really know a lot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Edit: Nevermind, just read your post completely. ;)

[Plantagenet]

Well I have to admit that reading about Vlad's life is a hell of alot more interesting than reading about Leopold I... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Nowake]

It's not a matter of disrespect Wizzy. I found it funny that so many people here,completely mislead by todays media, think that Vlad was such a huge figure in the antiottoman fight. He managed to win, but didn't made such a big difference. There were other romanian voievods that had much more better results, and the Habsburgs were indeed the ones to hold off the turks, although in 1683 they were saved by the polish, btw http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Wizard]

Yes indeed. Mmmmm hussars...



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Jan. 24 2004,07:40)]There were other romanian voievods that had much more better results, and the Habsburgs were indeed the ones to hold off the turks, although in 1683 they were saved by the polish, btw http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Actually saved by 2 armies:
1. King John III's Polish army
2. Duke Charles of Lorraine's Austro-German Imperial army (Lorrainers, Saxons, Bavarians, Swabians, Franconians, Thuringians, and the remnants of the Austrian army).

Of the total combined force, the Poles made up only about 1/3. They formed the right wing, the Austrians the left wing, and the German Imperials (Duke Charles) the center. Even though the Austro-Germans greatly outnumbered the Poles, John III was senior commander due to his royal rank; and at the critical moment, he led the combined Austro-German-Polish cavalry charge that shattered the Turkish lines, captured their camp, and finally ended the century-long threat against Vienna http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Nowake]

Well yes, that's quite a good battle report.

[Obex]

why compare/contrast william wallace to vlad? Did you just pick two popular historical figures, or am i missing the connection. and why not add wonderwoman to your poll.

Check this out. wonderwoman had bullet deflecting bracers, a lasso of truth, and an invisible jet. she was very strong and quick. did vlad have a lasso? i dont think so. and there is no point in discussing who would look better in the star spangled metalic bikini. i frankly dont see how she isnt better than both vlad and wallace.

[Nowake]

If you would have kept quiet, you would've remained a wise man.

[Obex]

Post edited

Because this is a history forum Obex, and WonderWoman is Fantasy.

I don't know why these two were chosen, nor do I care tbh.

Oh, and on an extra note, I hate sarcasm when used in an unfriendly context - keep from it.

This is for constructive arguments.

Edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel

[Nowake]

First, I don't know what he wrote, but if Ithaskar interviened, than it surely was the case. So thank you, Ithaskar-san.

Well, I wasn't the one starting the thread. but I don't think it should die like this. Why were Wallace and Dracul chosen? I don't think the matter deserves an answer because of the way it was raised, but I'll indulge you: I asume that it is because of their popularity nowadays and because of the attention given to them. They weren't fighting in the same context nor were they contemporanies, but they bassically had the same goal: freedom. If I were to have started this thread, I would've chosen Robert the Bruce instead of Wallace, but he was not the main character in Braveheart http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Aurelian]

Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)

I prefer William Wallace to Vlad Tepes because he would be less likely to impale me or nail things to my head. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Actually, someone should talk to Mel Gibson about doing a Braveheart sequel. Here's my treatment: William Wallace turns out to be an immortal from the Highlander series. Vlad Tepes is the vampire Dracula. In the 21st century, Wallace and Dracula meet in Los Angeles to fight for "the prize". There can be only one

[Nowake]

Uhmm, harder to put a pike in someones chest and do all those rituals than chop a head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Michael the Great]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Jan. 30 2004,04:51)]I would've chosen Robert the Bruce instead of Wallace, but he was not the main character in Braveheart
Oh,but I think it's better this way(my way)...
Why compare two personalities of the same culture?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

Quote[/b] ]
Well, I wasn't the one starting the thread. but I don't think it should die like this.

No,no...of course not...not while I'm still here... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Lazul]

Well whats the problem... Wallace used a skirt and nothing under it and Vlad IMPALED people.

tough choice?... dont think so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Vlad ofcourse

[Shigawire]

I'm with Vlad Tepes III on this one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif

His achievements in fending off the Turks are impressive. What fascinates me the most is his extensive use of fear and dread in order to get his way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

This reminds me of some stuff I read online. A lot of folklore-stuff, but I'm sure it has historical merits..
In any case, it's still 'stuff' :)

Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu in 1460.
In 1459, on St. Bartholomew?s Day, Vlad III had thirty thousand of the merchants and boyars of the Transylvanian city of Brasov impaled. (he thought they were parasites)

I like the Turban-story :D
But there's plenty more unconfirmed stories about this man.

"The Golden Cup"

Vlad Dracula was known throughout his land for his fierce insistence on honesty and order. Thieves seldom dared practice their trade within his domain, for they knew that the stake awaited any who were caught. Vlad was so confident in the effectiveness of his law that he laced a golden cup on display in the central square of Tirgoviste. The cup was never stolen and remained entirely unmolested throughout Vlad Dracula?s reign.

But he was also able to reward people.

"The Polish Nobleman"

Benedict de Boithor, a Polish nobleman in the service of the King of Hungary, visited Vlad Dracula at Tirgoviste in September of 1458. At dinner one evening Vlad ordered a golden spear brought and set up directly in front of the royal envoy. Vlad then asked the envoy if he knew why this spear had been set up. Benedict replied that he imagined some boyar had offended the prince and that Vlad intended to honor him. Vlad responded that the spear had, in fact, been set up in honor of his noble, Polish guest. The Pole then responded that if he had done anything to deserve death that Vlad should do as he thought best. Vlad Dracula was greatly pleased by this answer, showered him with gifts, and declared that had he answered in any other manner he would have been immediately impaled.

And.. what a true badass. Sadistic and plain scary-looking
http://www.donlinke.com/images/Vlad/vlad_tepes_orig_edit-x.jpg

Btw. he really LIKED to impale people. Although impalement was Vlad Dracula?s favorite method of torture, it was by no means his only method. The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of hell?s tools: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to wild animals, and burning alive.

I wouldn't want to meet this man in a dark alley. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Feb. 04 2004,08:37)]Uhmm, harder to put a pike in someones chest and do all those rituals than chop a head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif
How about a compromise...

First you chop head, then you post it on an oversized toothpick http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Feb. 14 2004,15:58)]
Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Feb. 04 2004,08:37)]Uhmm, harder to put a pike in someones chest and do all those rituals than chop a head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif
How about a compromise...

First you chop head, then you post it on an oversized toothpick http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz
Good ideea


Shigawire, both those stories are true. Especially the first http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Efrem Da King]

Just like to note that most of the worst stuff about him was made up by the king of hungary at the time as an excuse for his backstapping imprisonation of vlad. Who was the hero of europe for his defeat of the turks.


IT should also be stated that the city vlad had had impaled or sent into slavery had buried his brotherALIVE You'd be pissed too if your brother had been buried alive. He was chained into a grave and then buried just so you know. When vlad took power he had his brother taken to the surface, his brother face in absolute agony and fear and filled with dirt.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Vlad. I mean were any Vampires made about Wally?

[Vlad Tzepes]

Quote[/b] ]Brave geezer all told, especially his surprise cavalry charge against the Ottoman encampment which nearly captured the sultan.

Go Vlad Tzepes It was a night attack and he dressed his few soldiers in ottoman uniforms. The confusion was huge and the Turks continued slashing each other long after the valachian troops withdrew.~:thumb:

All my respect to Will Wallace, but I go for Vlad the Impaler (as a Romanian, I agree I might be a little biased on this matter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif ).

BTW - he was, indeed, depicted as one cruel ruler, but brutality and cruelty towards ennemies and hostages was quite common during Middle Age. Impaling was one of the methods used to strike terror in your ennemies.

[VikingHorde]

My vote goes to Vlad the Impaler. Nice guy to have around if you need to impale someone, specialy ottomans.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Vlad/ Wallace is a damn Scotsman And Vlad is a cooler naem (never heard of vlad tho, so cant make a tacticl comp[arison.
-Capo

[RisingSun]

Vlad is the historical figure "Dracula" was based on. He was a true badass, and impaled people on pikes, hence his nickname, "Vlad the Impaler." He wins over some never-bathes-because-he's-too-busy-fighting-the-English Scotsman. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I read up on Vlad. He stills kicks the scotchmans ass.
-Capo

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ April 13 2004,19:11)]Vlad is the historical figure "Dracula" was based on. He was a true badass, and impaled people on pikes, hence his nickname, "Vlad the Impaler." He wins over some never-bathes-because-he's-too-busy-fighting-the-English Scotsman. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
No actually the historically dracula and the vampire have nothing to do with each other.


Dracul in a.... (whatever is spoken in wallachia, I think its romananian) means both "Dragon" and "Devil" THe suffix a means "son of".


Vlad the 3rds father was made "Knight of the Imperial Dragon" and there had Dracul added to the end of his name, and as such his son got Dracula added to his name.



Bram stoker got the idea from the concept that vampires were the son of a devil which he got out of a romanian (?) dectionary and thats how he got the name of his character.



One huge coincidence. But none the less a coincindence.

[Nowake]

It's romanian language, Ef.

And "Dracul" means only "Devil". Taht's all. The name derived from the Dragon Order of Vlad's father, but "Dragon" in romanian is just like in english, "Dragon".

[Leet Eriksson]

I remember playing an old warcraft III style game called Dracula(AKA:Vlad Tepes)thats the only game thats was at least historically accurate,becuase in it you don't fight wolves,bats,skeletons and zombies but Turks

[Navaros]

i vote for Wallace because i've never seen countless BS myths about Wallace being perpetuated all throughout today's pop culture

i do however, see countless BS myths about Vlad being perpetuated all throughout today's pop culture.

if Vlad was really so great, then there would be NO NEED for anyone to make up myths about him.

based on this, i conclude that Wallace would massacre Vlad.

[ROCKHAMMER]

Before "Braveheart" only a few people knew who William Wallace was. Everybody knows Vlad the Impaler and his more famous personae Dracula. Nuff said... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[discovery1]

Vlad Tepes The Historical Dracula (http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm)


Read that and know why Vlad owns the weak Scotsman.

[ROCKHAMMER]

Great link, Discovery1 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Navaros]

i think someone needs to make a historical 3 hour long movie named Draculaheart

once that is done, then and only then will i be able to judge fairly who would Win

til i've seen Draculaheart, i'm sticking with Wallace http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[IrishMike]

A movie could be made like those other movies that i consider stupid (alien vs preditor, Fredy vs Jason). It could be call Wallace vs Vlad and then we could all see who wins and settle this dispute.

[TheSilverKnight]

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ April 14 2004,14:44)]I read up on Vlad. He stills kicks the scotchmans ass.
-Capo
k...the thing is calling William Wallace a "Scotchman" is insulting to Scots. He wasn't Scotch. Scotch is the name of a drink from Scotland. The proper term is Scotsman. Just had to point that out...cuz that kind of bothered me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I voted for Braveheart.

I don't really know all that much about Vlad the-evil-dude-who-was-sadistic-and-did-I-mention-evil except from what I skimmed off this topic.

It seems this is another one of those debates that will never be finished (not peacefully, at least http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-argue.gif ).

Braveheart was a good guy. Vlad wasn't.

(and yes, I know this is who would beat whom, but I still prefer Braveheart: his PR has been botched by Mel Gibson, but so has Vlad-the-OK-you-don't-want-to-read-all-these-dashes) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Jason the Absentminded]

Vlad in 6 rounds http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[PaolinoPaperino]

I read I think all this topic,
and I don't think needs more info to be added exept a small note:
almost all the info regarding Vlad comes from the Turks(enemy) and from the germans pamphlets(he was used to persecute the german merchants).
Form that sources I don't think he would never get a good sponsor.

But I still like that badass http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif