A Byzantine version of Vlad the Impaler

What if a ruler similar to Vlad the Impaler had taken power in the mid-11th century, after Basil II but well before Manzikert. Obviously not the man himself, but someone with similar methods for dealing with rebellious nobles and the Empire's enemies.

Since he actually has an impressive army at his disposal here, unlike Vlad who was barely able to last as long as he did with his paltry force, this ruler could actually be aggressive and expansionist, perhaps aiming to retake Sicily and the Levant if the latter was even possible.

Out of curiosity, would you consider George Maniakes to be as brutal as Vlad Tepes, even though he perhaps was never given the opportunity to show it on as wide a scale?
 
Yes, and Andronikos I Komnenos was also very brutal in dealing with the nobility.

Yeah, confiscating land left and right like that. I don't think he did anything that was even particularly violent - except in the sense executing those decrees would involve a certain amount of force.

"Brutal" is not the word I'd use to describe Basil towards the nobility. "Hostile", yes. But not "brutal".

Also, Basil's rule of Bulgaria was fairly mild - yes, we remember him for blinding 14,850 Bulgarians - but that as a one time thing hardly in the Vlad the Impaler as a rule range.

As for George Maniakes - I'd say no, but it is true that we never really got the chance to find out if his specular explosion of temper was typical or simply because it was rather extreme provocation.
 
Yeah, confiscating land left and right like that. I don't think he did anything that was even particularly violent - except in the sense executing those decrees would involve a certain amount of force.
Nothing on par with shoving a tree up someone, but Andronikos was responsible for allot of unlawful killing, blinding, and castrating, so I wouldn't say it bares no semblance to Vlad. More importantly, his motive was virtually identical, so I associate them with eachother to an extent.
 
Nothing on par with shoving a tree up someone, but Andronikos was responsible for allot of unlawful killing, blinding, and castrating, so I wouldn't say it bares no semblance to Vlad. More importantly, his motive was virtually identical, so I associate them with eachother to an extent.

Andronicus, definitely, Basil I would say was nothing like Vlad.

Although I'd say that in the context of Byzantine law - even with an Andronicus I - blinding and castration are not particularly grisly. Assuming for discussion's sake execution isn't, because otherwise there's no basis for comparing Byzantium to the West.
 
Andronicus, definitely, Basil I would say was nothing like Vlad.

Although I'd say that in the context of Byzantine law - even with an Andronicus I - blinding and castration are not particularly grisly. Assuming for discussion's sake execution isn't, because otherwise there's no basis for comparing Byzantium to the West.
I can agree to that, Basil wasn't especially bloody all things considered.

Castration isn't too brutal I suppost, but blinding in those days sounded awful. Granted, nothing I can think of off the top of my head could be worse than impalement, but having your eyes stabbed through without anasthetics is pretty grisly, to say nothing of the possibility of an infection afterwards.
 
I can agree to that, Basil wasn't especially bloody all things considered.

Castration isn't too brutal I suppost, but blinding in those days sounded awful. Granted, nothing I can think of off the top of my head could be worse than impalement, but having your eyes stabbed through without anasthetics is pretty grisly, to say nothing of the possibility of an infection afterwards.

The Byzantines seem to have used other methods than stabbing, not sure if that was the rule or just part of them being creative bastards.

But it's definitely nasty - for all intents and purposes, it can only be considered in the same light of execution in terms of "Is this justified?", IMO. Even without infection or undue pain, blindness is a serious kind of maiming.
 
There is something important to remember about Vlad Tepes. The people of his own time considered him brutal and terrifying, by the standards of that day and by the standards of his own culture.

So, a Byzantine 'Vlad' must really have the same 'shock value' both to the Romans he rules over and to the larger world surrounding him. He must be seen as a terrifying person.

That psychological terror was arguably Vlad Tepes' greatest strength.
 
Top