Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)
Who historical figure do u preffer over the other?(and why)
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Braveheart.
hes Scottish.
and without him god only knows what scotland would have been like.
British Army: be the best
Not much really,cept scotland fell much earlier i suppose....Originally Posted by [b
Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
SFTS =The rest =
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.
British Army: be the best
Willam Wallace wielded a 72 inch long claymore
Vlad Didn't
Winner: Wallace
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.
Retired from games altogether!!
Feudalism TOtal War, non-active member and supporter. Long Live Orthodox Christianity!
If one on one, I go for Mel…
Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book
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.
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
-Abraham Lincoln
Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
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
I have to go with Vlad, thanx to that idiot Mel.
Vlad all the way. Brave geezer all told, especially his surprise cavalry charge against the Ottoman encampment which nearly captured the sultan.
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.
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...
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
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.
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.
...this sword I'll never sheath,
Till I revenge my dearest, dearest's death.
Heavens what new toils of death and war remain
Rivers of floating blood, and hills of slain
But steel'd with rage, to slaughter let us fly,
And for her sake there shall ten thousand die.
Blind Harry's Wallace
The 72 inch long sword really DID exist, it's in a museum somewhere
Vlad is bitching though, you gotta admit that.
He was known as welsh william that is definetly true.
It is in the Wallace Monument, outside Stirling. Check out the link below.
Go Here
...this sword I'll never sheath,
Till I revenge my dearest, dearest's death.
Heavens what new toils of death and war remain
Rivers of floating blood, and hills of slain
But steel'd with rage, to slaughter let us fly,
And for her sake there shall ten thousand die.
Blind Harry's Wallace
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.
Retired from games altogether!!
Feudalism TOtal War, non-active member and supporter. Long Live Orthodox Christianity!
Oh, so you became Roman huh? cool.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
You're completelly right about this.
Wallace = Norman???
Oh...now I C
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
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.
Where did u read that??
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
wallace. stronger, fought with more heart.
*Bows. Turns to return to darkness...bumps head...looks around, pretends noone saw. Dissapears in shadows while cursing at self*
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.
...this sword I'll never sheath,
Till I revenge my dearest, dearest's death.
Heavens what new toils of death and war remain
Rivers of floating blood, and hills of slain
But steel'd with rage, to slaughter let us fly,
And for her sake there shall ten thousand die.
Blind Harry's Wallace
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.
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.
Retired from games altogether!!
Feudalism TOtal War, non-active member and supporter. Long Live Orthodox Christianity!
Ya' got to go with the Impaler; he was up against much more serious opposition than Wallace ever was and did pretty well.
Veni, Venti, Gripi
I came, I saw, the food did not agree with me.
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!
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
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.
Guthwyn
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).
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks