Vlad III Dracula: A Madman and Hero

            Vlad III Dracula was considered a hero to some and a madman to others. Vlad ruled as prince, or voivode, of Wallachia, Hungry three times during the mid 1400s. During his second reign, Vlad used several different tactics against the Ottoman Turks and other opponents. He expertly employed psychological and torture techniques; his most famous method was impalement. Vlad’s tactics were unconventional, but proved in keeping Wallachia safe for his people and leading a crusade against the Turks.
            Vlad III Dracula, or Vlad the Impaler, was born, in December 1431 A.D., in Sighisoara, Hungary located in what is now the center of modern Romania. Vlad spent a portion of time being educated physically in the Spartan style and by Christian tutors, as his father Vlad II Dracul sought a position higher than military governor. It was during that time that signs of a disturbed young Vlad were first noticed. Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally in Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times noted, “local traditions insist that the young boy showed, even at that early stage in life, a morbid curiosity for watching, from his first floor bedroom, criminals being led from the small jail in the Councilmen’s Square to the Jewelers’ Donjon, the usual place of execution by hanging.”[1] In 1436 A.D., Dracul moved his family to Tirgoviste, the capital city of Wallachia, Hungary where he became voivode.

            Dracul had also joined a Christian order, called the Order of the Dragon. Dracul was allied with the Muslim Turkish Sultan Murad II, but his loyalty wavered. It is most likely that Dracul had contemplated changing his loyalty due to his new position in the Order of the Dragon, where he had sworn to protect Christianity.[2] Murad took Vlad and his younger brother, Radu, captive and held them in Turkey, as insurance that Dracul would not betray him.
            During their imprisonment a wedge was forged between Vlad and Radu. Murad and Muad's son, Mehmed II, had turned Radu against Vlad by favoring Radu. It is also said that Mehmed and Radu had eventually became lovers, while Vlad was mistreated and beaten.[3] Benjamin Leblanc in Vlad Dracula: An Intriguing Figure in the Fifteenth Century suggested, “this Turkish captivity surely played an important role in Dracula’s upbringing; it must be at this period that he adopted a very pessimistic view of life.”[4] Vlad may have been mistreated, but he learned from the Muslim tutors in subjects such as military tactics. 
            Vlad and Radu were released from captivity in 1448 A.D., after news of the death of Dracul and their older brother, Mircea. Radu remained with the Turks, because of his relationship with Mehmed. Vlad sought to become voivode of Wallachia in honor of his father. Will Romano in Vlad Dracula’s War on the Turks reported, “the 17-year-old, having vowed to ascend to the throne of his homeland, got backing from the sultan in 1448 for an invasion of Wallachia.”[5] Vlad began in first reign in 1448, which lasted only a couple of months before he was forced to flee. 

            During his second reign, Vlad sought revenge on the boyars, or noblemen, of Hungary who had been responsible for overthrowing and murdering his father and Mircea. On Easter 1459 A.D., Vlad exacted revenge on the boyars, and their families, who had participated in the murder of Dracul. According to Florescu and McNally, the old were impaled outside Tirgoviste, while the young were marched fifty miles and forced to build the Poenari Castle [Castle Dracula], located northwest of Tirgoviste.[6] Vlad’s tactics only grew more violent afterwards.
            Pope Pius II gave Vlad more opportunities to expand his techniques of torture and warfare. Will Romano in Vlad Dracula’s War on Turks stated , in September 1459 A.D. during the Congress of Mantua in Italy, Pope Pius II called for a Crusade in response to the Turkish control of Constantinople.[7] Vlad was one of the only European princes to uphold his vow to the Pope by assembling an army. That vow was to protect Christianity.
            Part of the vow he made meant forming an alliance with the man he had vowed to kill, John Hunyadi, voivode of Transylvania. Vlad had been in a confrontation with Hunyadi, due to his involvement in the death of Dracul and Mircea. Vlad also chose to ally himself with John Hunyadi, because he knew he had to choose a side, or be destroyed. “It would be difficult enough fighting the Turkish army, which would outnumber his own three to one, without having to worry about an attack from the west by the Germans of Transylvania or their allies.”[8] John Hunyadi was the logical choice for an ally, since he was a voivode and fighting against the Muslim Turks.
            Vlad answered the Pope’s call and prepared to face his former captor’s son and recently crowned sultan, Mehmed II. Vlad’s brother, Radu remained an ally of the Turks and accompanied Sultan Mehmed to war. At this point Turkish Sultan Mehmed II was putting together forces to march on Hungry, to follow in his father, Murad II’s footsteps. Mehmed’s goal was to conquer all of Europe and Asia.[9] These events set into motion the man who would become known to the Turks as the “Impaler Prince.”[10]
            Vlad employed a series of torture and murder techniques on his military campaign against the Turks. Leblanc stated, “Vlad became quite known for his brutal punishment techniques; he often ordered people to be skinned, boiled, decapitated, blinded, strangled, hanged, burned, roasted, hacked, nailed, buried alive, stabbed, etc. He also liked to cut off noses, ears, sexual organs and limbs.”[11] His most popular choice was impalement, which he utilized in ways to either cause longer lasting pain or instant death. To some, Vlad’s fascination with impalement could be considered a fetish.[12]
            During the summer of 1462 A.D., Mehmed pursued Vlad through Hungry and in response; Vlad implemented a tactic referred to as “scorched earth.” Vlad cleared the land in his path of all life. He took the villagers and livestock into the mountains to safety. As they made their way to safety, they burned the villages and fields, poisoned and diverted the water supply, and set traps.[13] Mehmed’s army starved and thirsted as they followed, while Vlad’s army continued their psychological warfare through small guerrilla style skirmishes.
            Vlad had made his way to Tirgoviste and hid safely behind the city walls. Mehmed had planned to besiege the city, but was emotionally broken from Vlad’s brutal tactics and the scene he witnessed around the city. “In a mile-long ditch surrounding the city, the remains of Turkish prisoners…were rotting away on stakes.”[14] Mehmed had a trench dug around the camp for fear that Vlad might attack them while they slept.[15] Afterwards, Mehmed wanted nothing to do with Tirgoviste, so he and his army fled. Vlad’s horrific tactics had done the job. 
           Radu was left to deal with Vlad following Mehmed’s retreat. Afterwards, Vlad retreated to Castle Poenari, where Radu trapped him. Vlad secretly fled for his life with the aid of the peasants. In November 1462 A.D., Vlad was betrayed by Matthias Corvinus, son of John Hunyadi, and held captive for approximately ten to twelve years.[16] During his time in captivity, Vlad shows his obsession with impalement. Several accounts indicate that Vlad tortured and impaled mice during his time as captive.[17] In 1476 A.D., after Vlad was released from captivity, Corvinus aided Vlad in becoming voivode once again. Two months later Vlad was killed near Bucharest, the current capital of Romania, located in the southern portion of the country. 
            Vlad employed a series of horrible acts throughout his time as voivode, but he kept Wallachia safe during this portion of the Ottoman-Hungarian Wars. Elizabeth Miller in Dracula: The History of Myth and the Mystery of History emphasized, “Romanian folk narratives (still told in villages near his fortress of Poenari) present a very different Vlad: a supporter of the peasants against the treacherous boyars, and upholder of law and order in lawless times, and a valiant defender of his small principality against the might of the Ottoman Empire.”[18] Vlad also successfully prevented the boyar class from becoming too powerful and greedy. Historians often compare him to Robin Hood.[19] Wallachia was so safe that Vlad could leave a golden chalice by a fountain in Wallachia without fear of it being stolen. [20] Perhaps it is this reason that Romanians still consider Vlad to be a national hero. It could also be due to the fierce loyalty of his supporters.

            During Vlad’s second reign his military personnel found him to be inspirational and a leader of peasants. “Dracula’s objectives in using terror at home thus included ending feudal anarchy through the subjugation of the boyar class; preventing disorders wrought by thieves, gypsies, and vagabonds and ensuring the security of merchants and their goods at a time when roads were hazardous, to say the least.”[21] In this way we see Vlad as a capable leader, looking out for the interests of his subjects. It is possible for a man capable of horrific deeds, against those who oppose him, and to still be an effective ruler.

            Vlad’s life circumstances may have created one of the most violent rulers in history. “Estimates range from a minimum of 40,000 victims to a maximum of 100,000, a calculation made by the papal nuncio, the bishop of Erlau, near the end of Dracula’s career in 1475…”[22] He employed many methods of torture and was effective in the use of psychological warfare. Despite his acts, Vlad also maintained peace and prosperity within the principality of Wallachia.

            Insight into Vlad’s childhood may provide factors that created a mass murderer with a fetish for impalement. He tortured and killed his victims, mostly the Turks, in often creative ways. Vlad’s use of psychological warfare seemed to be effective even against one of history's other sadistic leaders, Sultan Mehmed II. During Vlad’s reign as voivode, he provided peasants with a sense of security that still lingers in the hearts of Romanians today.

ENDNOTES

---

[1] Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times. (Boston: Black Bay, 1989), 47.
[2] Ibid., 53.
[3] Ibid., 55-57.
[4] Benjamin H. Leblanc, “Vlad Dracula: An Intriguing Figure in the Fifteenth Century,” Journal of the Dark, no. 5 (n.d.), accessed November 8, 2013, 1http://www.htspweb.co.uk/fandf/romlit/specnew/vlad/archive2/leblanc.htm
[5] Will Romano, “Vlad Dracula’s War on the Turks,” Military History 20, no. 4 (2003): 60. EBSCOhost.
[6] Leblanc, “Vlad Dracula, An Intriguing Figure in the Fifteenth Century.”
[7] Romano, “Vlad Dracula’s War on the Turks,” 61.
[8] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 125
[9] Ibid., 125.
[10] Ibid., 163.
[11] Leblanc, “Vlad Dracula, An Intriguing Figure in the Fifteenth Century.”
[12] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 163.
[13] Ibid., 143-144.
[14] Romano, “Vlad Dracula’s War on Turks,” 64.
[15] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 149.
[16] Romano, “Vlad Dracula’s War on Turks,” 65.
[17] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 163.
[18] Elizabeth Miller, “Dracula: The History of Myth and the Mystery of History,” Journal of the Dark 9 (1996): accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/myth.html
[19] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 99.
[20] Ibid., 103.
[21] Florescu and McNally, Dracula Prince of Many Faces, 103.
[22] Ibid., 167.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Florescu, Radu R., and Raymond T. McNally. Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times. Boston: Black Bay, 1989.

Leblanc, Benjamin H. “Vlad Dracula: An Intriguing Figure in the Fifteenth Century.” Journal of the Dark, no. 5 (n.d.): Accessed November 8, 2013. http://www.htspweb.co.uk/fandf/romlit/specnew/vlad/archive2/leblanc.htm

Miller, Elizabeth. “Dracula: The History of Myth and the Mystery of History.” Journal of the Dark 9(1996): Accessed November 9, 2013. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/myth.html

Romano, Will. “Vlad Dracula’s War on the Turks.” Military History 20, no. 4 (2003): 58-65. EBSCOhost.

 
Note from the author: There is a lack of reliable information on the internet regarding Vlad III Dracula, because of the Dracula myth and Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The majority of the websites and articles I came across all relayed to the mythical Dracula, not the historical figure. The information in this paper is believed to be true, based on the few peer-reviewed articles and books I found to be credible. There also seems to be a lack of primary sources available over the internet, other than pictures of portraits and coins with Dracula’s likeness. I highly suggest reading Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times, if you want an in-depth discussion of Dracula, the historical figure. The book provides so much information on who Dracula was, as well as used what seems to be reliable sources which cannot be accessed online.

The Knights Templar: From Heroes to Villains

            The Knights Templar was formed during the Crusades of the Middle Ages. Their original purpose was to combine the lifestyle of a monk and knight in order to protect Christians on pilgrimage. The Knights Templars provided protection and military services to pilgrims, the Church, and kings in Christendom. As the order membership and notoriety grew with it came temptations from the secular world.  With the greed and corruption of the Templar members, came the downfall of their order. The Knights Templar had a profound effect on Christendom through both their righteousness and corruption.
            In 1095 A.D., Pope Urban II gave his speech at the Council of Clermont in France, which inspired Christians to take up arms. His speech would prove to be an inspiration that rallied Christians to go on pilgrimage and fight for the Holy Land. Fulcher of Chartres wrote that during Pope Urban’s speech he asked people of all class, from the poor to the noble, to aid in defeating the Muslims.[1] Monk-knight societies were created in response to his call.    

       The Order of Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, or the Knights Templar, was one of the first to form in response to Pope Urban II.  The original founders were two French knights, named Hugues de Payens and Godfrey de Saint-Omer. The two sought to protect the pilgrims on their journey to locations of divine significance. Matthew Paris’ manuscript, Chronica Majora, mentioned, “At first they were so poor, although they were energetic, that they had only one war horse between the two. In memory of their primitive poverty and their observance of humility, on their seal is engraved two riding one horse.”[2] Several others joined the order, soon after, bringing their numbers to nine.
            The order was recognize by several popes and other noble persons throughout its existence.  In 1128 A.D., the order was officially recognized by St. Bernard of Clairvaux. According to St. Bernard In Praise of the New Knighthood, “This is, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone by. It ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and against a spiritual army of evil in the heavens.”[3] In this same year a council was held at Troyes, France issuing them white garb.[4] Later, a symbol still recognizable as the Knights Templar’s was issued, the red cross. After the recognition people flocked to join the order in their holy quest.
            The knights were required to swear an oath during a secret ceremony. William of Tyre in The Foundation of the Order of the Knights Templar explained, “They promised to live in perpetuity as regular canons without possessions, under vows of chastity and obedience.”[5] Along with these vows, the knights were required to serve in two ways. First, they served as monks keeping the Christian laws. Secondly, they were knights; fighting to take back Jerusalem and destroy the infidel army.
            Not every man who wished to join the order could do so. Membership to the order was only granted to those who met specific requirements. The initiates were required to have knight training and be of legitimate birth. In 1139 A.D., Pope Innocent declared, “Be also aware that, as your holy institution and religious knighthood has been established by divine providence, it is not at all fitting for you to relocate to any other place under the pretext of a more religious life, because God who is indeed unchangeable and eternal, does not approve inconstant hearts…”[6] Once the knights became members they were not allowed to return to normal life.
            There were those that were considered affiliates of the order. They were persons who worked with members of the order, but did not act as clergy, knights, or servants. Thomas Keightley stated, “The affiliated were persons of various ranks in society, and of both sexes, who, without giving up their secular mode of life, or wearing any peculiar habit, joined the order, with a view to the advantages, both spiritual and temporal, which they expected to derive from it.”[7] As affiliates, they participated in mass and worked on the Templar lands. They were also given the protection of the order.
            In order to become an affiliate a person must do several things. Thomas Keightley emphasized, “This ambitious and covetous order required that he who sought the honor of affiliation with them should, besides taking the three vows, pledge himself to lead a reputable life, to further the interests of the order to the best of his power, and leave it the entire of his property at his death.”[8] The affiliates were also allowed to be married. These differences from the knights allowed the affiliates to live both a secular life and a pious life.
            The Templar influence on laity did not stop with their affiliates. Their influence continued into the secular world in several different areas. As their wealth and power grew, the Templars had an influence in almost every area of life. People of all classes would have been influenced by the Knights Templars, since their members worked in many different trades. There were butchers, smiths, priests, and many other positions held by Templar members. As knights, their skills were also employed in other areas.
            The First Crusade began, in 1096 A.D., following Pope Urban II’s call to aid Holy Land and the knights made their way to Jerusalem. The Knights Templar took up residence in Jerusalem at the Temple Mount in 1118 A.D., which was significant to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. William of Tyre claimed, “Their primary duty, one of which was enjoined upon them by the Lord Patriarch [Warmund] and the other bishops for the remission of sins, was that of protecting the roads and route against the attack of robbers and brigands. This they did especially in order to safeguard the pilgrims.”[9] Muslims slaughtered many of these pilgrims, while they were en-route to holy locations.
            With the increase in the number of members, the Pope began assigning them larger roles in the Holy War. The knights were employed by the Pope to carry out his holy orders and fight the infidel armies. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated, “No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them victory.”[10] The knights were also employed to accompany kings on their journeys to the Holy Land.
            In 1147 A.D., the knights were sent on another task by Pope Eugene III, to aid the king of France. According to Thomas Keightley in Secret Societies of the Middle Ages, “The newly-elected master of the Temple, Everard des Barres [sic], and 130 knights, accompanied the king [Louis VII] on his march for the Holy Land; and their valor [sic] and their skill greatly contributed towards the preservation of the crusading army in their unfortunate march through Lesser Asia.”[11] Along with escorting of kings and peasants, the knights fought against and laid siege on cites once taken by Muslims in order to retake them.
            There are several instances of which a knight, or knights, showed their valiance and unwavering faith. In 1187 A.D., the Templars fought Sultan Saladin’s army at the Horns of Hattin, Israel. Thomas Keightley reported, “At the fatal battle of Hattin [sic], where 30,000 Christians lost their lives…Many who belonged not to the orders, smit with desire for the glory of martyrdom, cast the mantles of Templars around them, and went cheerfully to death as such.”[12] Even in death, the Templars instilled courage in the hearts of those around them.
            In 1236 A.D., during the Battle at Darbsak against the Sultan of Aleppo, Imad ad-Din Zengi, a knight fell. Matthew Paris noted:

There fell in that unfortunate struggle an illustrious Knights Templar, of English nationality. Reginald of Argentan whom that most bloody day the task of baring the banner which is called “Beauseant” [sic] had been committed on account of his singular prowess. He bore it untiringly until with his horse maimed and his arms severed, and drilled with many other wounds he fell covered in blood and thus commended his spirit to God.[13]

            Many people would view these acts of war against the Muslims as impiety. St. Bernard of Clairvaux argued, “The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a man killer [sic], but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil.”[14] St. Bernard may have indicated that their acts of war were pious, but not all of them could be justified as the will of God.
            During their existence, many have questioned the actions of the Knights Templars, on several occasions. The Templars and the Hospitallers, another order of monk-knights, became rivals. Thomas Keightley wrote, “The Templars were in alliance with the Prince of Damascus: the Hospitallers were the friends of the sultan of Egypt [Al-Kamil].”[15] The rivalry between the two monastic orders only increase over time.
            In 1241 A. D., the Templars drew extreme measures against the Hospitallers. Matthew Paris confirmed, “The Templars carried their attack so far that they besieged the Hospitaller’s house in Acre [a city in Israel] and did not allow them to collect food, nor even to carry their dead out to burial from their houses which they were besieged.”[16] They also took actions against the order of the Tuetonic Knights. The Hopsitallers sought revenge as a result of the Templar’s actions.
            They paid the price, in 1259 A.D., after the Hopsitallers slaughtered a Templar army. The Templars had changed from pious monk-knights into killers of fellow Christians. The conflict only proved to tarnish the name of the holy order. The actions against the Hospitallers by the Templars created such an uncertainty among the people. Matthew Paris further reported, “They used to be legitimate defenders of the Church but then became destroyers of it and of peace, and even became its cruel exterminators.”[17] The impious acts did not stop there, but extended to other areas.
            The Knights Templar developed a banking system to aid the travelers during pilgrimage. Thomas Keightley pointed out, “It was now very much the custom for monarch’s to deposit their treasures in the Temple house…”[18] The Templar commanderies acted as a bank where their money and valuables would be kept safe, until their return. In the process, the Templars were also able to charge a rate, which worked around the prohibition of taxation.
            The Templars had established temples in almost every kingdom in Christendom,[19] and were able to collect money in each. Matthew Paris suggested, “The Templars have nine thousand manors in Christendom…plus emoluments and various profits from confraternity income from preaching and gains from their privileges.”[20] Their wealth and numbers continued to increase through these avenues. Their downfall was the result of their greed.The Knights Templar laid siege on the city of Ascalon, on the coast of Israel, in 1153 A.D. When the knights successfully produced a hole in the city’s wall the knights showed their greed. Thomas Keightley reported:

The army was preparing to enter at this opening when Bernard de Tremelay [sic], the Master of the Temple, taking his station at it with his knights, refused all ingress. It was the law of war in those days, among the crusaders, that whatever house or spoils any one took when a town was stormed, became his property. The Templars, therefore, were eager to have first choice; and having kept off all-others, Tremelay [sic], with forty of his knights, boldly entered a strongly-garrisoned town. But they paid the penalty of their rashness and cupidity; for the garrison surrounded and slew them all, and then closed up the breach.[21]

            Pope Innocent II’s Papal Bull, in 1139 A.D., could possibly justify their actions in Ascalon, Israel. Pope Innocent II stated in Omne Datum Optimum, “As for the things that you receive from the spoils, you can confidently put them to your own use, and we prohibit that you coerced against your will to give anyone a portion of these.”[22] The Templars found ways, other than the spoils of war, to gain vast amounts of wealth. They created the first banking system that encompassed most of Europe by the aid of the pilgrimage.
            At the end of the Crusades, the Knights Templars found their influence becoming weaker over much of Christendom. In 1291 A.D., the city of Acre, Israel fell out of crusader control when it was attacked by the Muslim army. Thomas Keightley mentioned that the Templars that escaped the siege were forced to take refuge in Cyprus.[23] They remained there for a number of years, until King Philip IV sought to remove the Templars to avoid paying his debt to them.
            On February 13^th 1307 A.D., Pope Clement V and King Philip IV had the Templars arrested. Thomas Keightley noted, “They became the victims of the unprincipled rapacity of a merciless prince; their property seized and confiscated; their noblest members perished in flames; their memory was traduced and maligned; the foulest crimes were laid to their charge; and a secret doctrine, subversive of the social tranquility and national independence, was asserted to have animated their councils.”[24] What remaining knights had escaped capture disappeared for fear that they would also be killed. The powerful order of the Knights Templar was at an end.
            Throughout the rise and fall of the Knights Templar, they did many positive things for Christendom. They fought valiantly to protect pilgrims, kings, and noble men. The Templars died for the Church and the Holy Land. They helped establish a banking system that aided people of all classes. They provided mass, work, goods, and services for laity.
            The Knights Templar had risen from two poor knights to a powerful order that stretched across Europe. This is the vision people get when they think of knights of the Middle Ages. Thomas Keightley observed, “Romancers, and those who write history as if it were romance, exert all their power to keep up the illusion…of waving plumes, gaudy surcoats, emblazoned shield, with lady’s love, knightly honor, and courteous feats of arms.”[25] The knights may have had instances of courage and valor, but they also had temptations and were surrounded by corruption.
            The Templars were also capable of horrible acts. They were often found to be treacherous and greedy. They fought not only against the Muslims, but fellow Christians as well. The feud with the Hospitallers is a definitive example of this. The Templars used their power to take advantage of pilgrims in order to gain wealth. Their deeds were all done under the illusion of righteousness.
            The Popes, during the Crusades, may have found ways to justify the reasons for the actions of the Templars, but it did not hide that they were not as holy as they seemed. What had started as a pious, chaste, and poor order grew into an order of villains. In ways the Knights Templar helped to benefit Christendom with their positive influence, but in other way they injured those around them. The Templars created the events which led to their own downfall. With their arrest and dissemination of the remaining members, Christendom was left defenseless against the Muslim invasion.
            The order of the monk-knights proved to impact many different areas of life during the Crusades. They played a part in the development of banking in Europe. Their corruption in battle and banking led to their downfall. They aided people of all classes and in every country in Christendom. The Knights Templar had a positive and negative effect on Christendom both during and after their existence.

ENDNOTES

---

[1] Fulcher of Chartres, “Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095,” Medieval Sourcebook, last modified March 1996, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html
[2] Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, trans. Helen J. Nicholson, edited by H. R. Luard, Global Folio, accessed June 26, 2013, http://globalfolio.net/monsalvat/frglorios/ricarstvol/tampl_matthew_paris.htm
[3] St. Bernard of Clairvaux,  In Praise of the New Knighthood, The Orb, accessed June 21, 2013, http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/bernard.html
[4] William of Tyre, “The Foundation of the Order of Knights Templar,” Medieval Sourcebook, accessed July 17, 2013, httyp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tyre-templars.asp
[5] Ibid.
[6] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum, March 29, 1139, accessed July 12, 2013, http://knightstemplarvault.com/omne-datum-optimum-papal-bull-of-privileges-to-the-knights-templar/
[7] Thomas Keightley, Secret Societies of the Middle Ages, (London: Charles Knight, 1837), 239.
[8] Ibid., 240.
[9]  William of Tyre, “The Foundation.”
[10] St. Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise of the New Knighthood.
[11] Keightley, Secret Societies, 204.
[12] Ibid., 211-212.
[13] Paris, Chronica Majora.
[14] St. Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise of the New Knighthood.
[15] Keightley, Secret Societies, 217.
[16] Paris, Chronica Majora.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Keightley, Secret Societies, 214.
[19] William of Tyre, “The Foundation.”
[20] Paris, Chronica Majora.
[21] Keightley, Secret Societies, 205.
[22] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum, March 29, 1139, accessed July 12, 2013, http://knightstemplarvault.com/omne-datum-optimum-papal-bull-of-privileges-to-the-knights-templar/
[23] Keightley, Secret Societies, 220.
[24] Ibid., 170.
[25] Ibid., 171.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fulcher of Chartres. “Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095.” Medieval Sourcebook. Last modified March 1996. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html

Keightley, Thomas. Secret Societies of the Middle Ages. London: Charles Knight, 1837.

Paris, Matthew. Chronica Majora. Translated by Helen J. Nicholson. Edited by H. R. Luard. Global Folio. Accessed June 26, 2013. http://globalfolio.net/monsalvat/frglorios/ricarstvo1/tampl_matthew_paris.htm

Pope Innocent II. Omne Datum Optimum. March 29, 1139. Accessed July 12, 2013. http://knightstemplarvault.com/omne-datum-optimum-papal-bull-of-privileges-to-the-knights-templar/

St. Bernard of Clairvaux. In Praise of the New Knighthood. The Orb. Accessed June 21, 2013. http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/religion/monastic/bernard.html

William of Tyre, “The Foundation of the Order of Knights Templar.” Medieval Sourcebook. Accessed July 17, 2013. http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/tyre-templars.asp

Spartacus and the Slave Army

            Lentulus Batiates owned a gladiatorial, or ludus, training school in Capua. In 73 B.C. several gladiators and slaves revolted. Spartacus became one of three generals who lead an army of slaves and freedmen against Rome in the Third Servile War. The slave army continuously won battles against the Roman legions sent against them. Spartacus gained skills from the gladiatorial training, which gave him and his army the ability to use his environment and resources in battle. Spartacus led the slave army during the Third Servile War until their defeat in 71 B.C. The tactics used in battle showed how ingenuity, resourcefulness, and courage aided Spartacus and his army during the Third Servile War.
            Two Servile Wars had been fought between 135 and 100 B.C., in Sicily. The slave revolts were eventually squashed by the Roman army. The First Servile War began in 135 B.C. due to drastic changes in slave ownership and lack of food, which created conditions that spark the rebellion. Approximately twenty thousand slaves were led by Eunus, a slave entertainer, until their defeat in 132 B.C. The Second Servile War was fought from 104 to 100 B.C. Salvius and his army of a few thousand slaves revolted while they were being forced into slavery after mistakenly being released. In Sicily overcrowding had become an issue which increase conflicts before both Servile Wars broke out.
            Slaves made up a large portion of the population during the Roman Republic. Jona Lendering suggests in his writing Spartacus that, traders or pirates were continuously selling slaves, and as a consequence, runaway slaves began filling the country.[1] The runaways slaves probably felt that the conditions they had to live in were unacceptable, and as a result they would risk death to gain their freedom. The slaves would often return home, but many chose to hide in the countryside and often became bandits. Persons that became slaves were placed in a situation without any rights, or so much as a name. The slaves were subjected to their owners’ whims.
            Slaves, in Ancient Rome, were a common commodity among the prestigious. Their slaves were often purchased to flaunt their wealth and were an important status symbol. Many of the slaves had been captured or were prisoners of war. In Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome Keith Bradley believes, “some slaves were treated well, but there were few restraints on their owner’s powers, and physical punishment and sexual abuse were common.”[2] The slaves had no voice in the actions which were taken against them, unless they were able to purchase their freedom. Some slaves sought ways to relieve themselves of the torment a life of slavery brought them; such as by stealing money to buy their freedom or they committed suicide in order to escape a life of slavery. It is understandable why slaves would want to seek revenge or why they would seek to escape slavery.
            Slaves planned and escaped from the Lentulus Batiates gladiatorial school in 73 B.C. There were approximately seventy, to less than eighty; slaves escaped the school in Capua. Plutarch states in Plutarch’s Lives, “two hundred of these resolved to make their escape; but their design being betrayed, those who had notice of the discovery, and succeeded in getting away, to the number of seventy-eight, took knives and spits out of the cook’s shop, and sallied out.”[3] After the slaves had escaped the school they began looting for more weapons. N.S. Gills mentions in Spartacus: The Slave Revolt of Spartacus the Gladiator that, the slaves took weapons from wagons.[4] After the fugitive slaves found the gladiatorial weapons they made their way from Capua to Mount Vesuvius.
            The slaves began to organize themselves at Mount Vesuvius. That is where the slaves made their intentions known. It was first to plunder and secondly to prepare for war with Rome. They could have chosen to return to their homelands instead, or to hide in the hills like many runaway slaves had before them. During their stay at Mount Vesuvius the escaped slaves were joined by many others. Appian in The Civil Wars writes, “After this still greater numbers flocked to Spartacus till his army numbered 70,000 men.”[5] At Mount Vesuvius, they also chose their generals, whom were among those that had escaped from Capua. They trained and prepared themselves for what lay ahead.
            The slaves at Mount Vesuvius and those that joined them afterwards, attracted more people their cause. These people were fugitives, slaves, shepherds, and freedmen. The army consisted of men, women, and children. Prisoners joined them after the slaves released them during raids. Spartacus drew many to his followers, because he equally split the plunders gathered after a raid.  In Florus on Spartacus Publius Annius Florus reports, “Supplied with abundant material…his [Spartacus’] men provided themselves with plenty of arms and continued in robbery for the time being.”[6] Shepherds may have become scouts, because of their familiarity with the countryside. They gained their weapons and armor, used during raids and battle, in several different ways.
            The slave army used different resources to prepare themselves for war. The gladiators may have used the training techniques to train their militia. Florus notes, “ They made themselves rude shields of wicker-work and the skins of animals, and swords and other weapons by melting down the iron in the slave-prisons…Calvary was procured by breaking herds of horses which they encountered.”[7] They traded their gladiatorial weapons for those they confiscated during raids or battle. The leaders of the slave army proved successful in building a force worthy of opposing the Roman army.
            The slave army chose three leaders from their group, of the original slaves from the ludus school. Spartacus, Crixus, and Oenomaus were chosen to become generals. According to Lendering, “They represented ethnic groups: a Thracian, a Greek, and a German.”[8] The generals would shape the army for battle with Rome. Other sources suggest that Oenomaus and Crixus may have served second in command to Spartacus, because he may have had previous military experience.
            Spartacus became the strongest leader and saw the war to its end. He was a Thracian of nomadic ethnicity. Sources provide different theories on how Spartacus became a slave.  Some suggest he was a prisoner of war or a bandit, while others suggest that he had served as a Roman soldier and became a deserter. Most sources agree that Spartacus was elected, because of his courage. Plutarch claims, “They say that when Spartacus was first taken to Rome to be sold, a snake was seen folded over his face while he was sleeping, and a woman…who was skilled in divination...declared that this was a sign of a great and formidable power which would attend him to a happy termination.”[9] It is possible that this prophecy may have increased his ability to gain allies, such as those generals who escaped from the ludus along with him.
            Oenomaus and Crixus died early in the war, but their lives made impact enough to be mentioned in several sources. Crixus was killed in battle near Mount Garganus sometime during 72 B.C., with the majority of his militia. Appian confirms that Spartacus offered a sacrifice in Crixus’s honor, by killing hundreds of Roman prisoners.[10] Sources provided limited information on Oenomaus. It is suggested that Oenomaus was Gallic. He may have died early during the rebellion, possibly during a raid seeking plunder. Spartacus was last of the original three generals from 72 to 71 B.C., and it was his leadership that led them through many battles.
            During the first confrontation at Mount Vesuvius, the slave army proved their adaptability to situations. They used thinking skills to decide the best way to outsmart their enemies by using their environment to their aid. Aldo Schiavone in Spartacus explains:

The topography of the area is different today, partially due to two millennia of lava accumulation, and this does not help us to identify the spot exactly: one plausible hypothesis is that the fugitives hid out in the hills between Mounts Somma and Vesuvius….The crest of the mountain where they had treated,…abounded in wild vines: the slopes of Vesuvius were clad with vineyards which produced a celebrated wine.[11]

            The slaves used the vines to aid them in outsmarting their enemy. Florus illustrates, “being besieged here by Clodius Glabrus, [a praetor, or commander, also known as Gaius Claudius Glaber] they slid by means of ropes made of vine-twigs through a passage in the hollow of the mountain down into its very depths, and issuing forth by a hidden exit, seized the camp of the [sic] general by a sudden attack which he never expected.”[12] The slave army may have also used the vines to create ladders in order to climb down the mountain side in the cover of night. A member of the slave army lowered the weapons down after the army had descended the mountain. The slave army then crept through the enemy camp while they were sleeping in order to confuse them with an attack. After the Romans had fled the camp Spartacus’s men were able to take the weapons and supplies left behind.
            After the defeat, a new Roman army was sent in its place. As Appian claims, after Glaber’s troops were defeated, Publius Varinius hastily formed an army, since the rebel army was not a large concern for Rome.[13] It is also possible that a trained Roman army was not available to address the issue. Rome was engaged in two other wars during the time with Hispania, the region of Spain, and the other with King Mithradates VI, in what is now Turkey. The Senate most likely sent Varinius in an attempt to prevent the slave rebellion from further increasing, but he was unsuccessful.
            Publius Varinius’s army was divided in two. Furius and Cossinus each controlled one portion of the Roman army. Sextus Julius Frontinus in The Strategemata remarks, “This Spartacus, when enveloped by the troops of the proconsul Publius Varinius [also called Publius Valerius and Publius Barinus by different sources] placed stakes at short intervals before the gate of the camp; then setting up corpses, dressed in clothes and furnished with weapons, he tied these to the stakes to give the appearance of sentries when viewed from a distance.”[14] The slave army once again demonstrates their ingenuity using the resources available to outsmart their opponent. The tactics may have provided aid in defeating both portions of Varinius’s troops.
            Varinius was humiliated by the outcome of events.  At some point Furius’s army had engaged the slave army and was defeated. Plutarch explains, “Cossinus was then dispatched, with a large force, to advise with Barinus, and to be associated in the command; but Spartacus… was very near seizing him. Cossinus made his escape with great difficulty, and Spartacus, seizing the baggage closely followed up the pursuit, with great slaughter of the Romans, and he took the camp.”[15] The slave army moved into the countryside and continued to plunder. They had encountered several more Roman legions along the way. The slave army was victorious in the majority of battles, but also suffered a few defeats. Titus Livy insists that Spartacus’ army defeated the legions of consuls and praetors Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, Lucius Gellius Publicola, Quintus Arrius, Gaius Cassius Longinus Varus, and Gnaeus Manlius along the way.[16] These battles took place from north Italy to the region of Campania, in southwest Italy.
            Appian and Plutarch both report a difference in events that took place, but both agree that the slave army was pursued by Licinius Crassus and eventually made their way south. Marcus Licinius Crassus had been sent to join his legions with the remaining legions of Lentulus and Publicola. Crassus then sent his general, Mummius, to watch the slave army and ordered him not to attack. Mummius had disobeyed Crassus and was defeated. Spartacus and the slave army avoided confrontation with Crassus’ force as they traveled towards Bruttium, the toe of Italy.
            Spartacus and his men sought transportation to Sicily while on the east coast of Italy. It is suggested by several historians that the slaves wanted transportation to Sicily. It is possible they chose this location, because it had been the location of previous two slave rebellions. The slave army made an agreement with Cilician pirates. Plutarch claims, “The Cilicians came to terms with Spartacus and received his presents; but they deceived him, and sailed off.”[17] They then built rafts in an attempt to cross the Strait of Messina. This seems to be the one instance where the slave army failed at using the resources to succeed in their goals. Crassus’s legions had then move into the area and trapped the slave army.
            Crassus decided to build a wall in order to make certain the slave army would not escape Bruttium. He had probably received some pressure from the Senate to destroy the slave army. Lendering concludes, “It was sixty kilometers [approximately 37.28 miles] long, but his army consisted of eight legions, or 32,000 men, and the job was done quickly.[18] Crassus had hoped to starve the slaves as they were trapped in Bruttium. The slaves found that the resources for food were becoming exhausted. Spartacus had attempted, but failed at making an agreement with Crassus. It was up to the slave army to take matters into their own hands once more.
            The slave army uses its ingenuity to find ways to attack the Roman military. According to Appian they, “harassed the besiegers by frequent sallies [excursions] here and there. He fell upon them unexpectedly and continually, threw bundles of fagots into the ditch and set them on fire and made their labor difficult.”[19] With the cover of a winter storm, they built ramps across the trenches and escaped northeast to Brundisium. Spartacus learned that Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus’s army was moving to reinforce Crassus. Spartacus decided it was time to make their final stand against Crassus’s legions.
            Spartacus’s army confronted the Roman legions at Siler River in 71 B.C., which would become [20] The slaves that had escaped were either captured or crucified along the Appian Way. These events at the Siler River ended the Third Servile War.
known as the Battle of the Siler River. Due to the size of the armies the troops were not quickly depleted as the battle waged on. Spartacus decided it was time to die as heroes and sent the remainder of his army against the Romans. Appian writes, “Spartacus was wounded in the thigh with a spear and sank upon his knee, holding his shield in front of him and contending in this way against his assailants until he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain.”
            The war did nothing to improve the lives of slaves. If anything the results made it more difficult for slaves to escape. With the capture and execution of the slave army, life in Rome became normal once again. The Romans had no reason to concern themselves, since slaves were back under their control and fear of a rebellion was gone. Adrian Goldsworthy in He Was Spartacus; What Do We Actually Know About the Most Famous Gladiator in History? claims that there was never another slave revolt after the Third Servile War.[21] This is possibly due to the employment of slave catchers. Rome would never allow such disobedience to cause devastation to their country again.
            The Third Servile War showed that, despite the oppression of slaves, they posed a serious threat to Rome during a rebellion. The slaves successfully made their escape to build an army using confiscated resources. They used those resources to prepare themselves for war. Their allies joined their cause with the promise of equally distributed plunders and revenge. They elected leaders and Spartacus proved to be an able and courageous leader.
            Spartacus and the slave army showed their persistence in seeking revenge upon their former masters and the Roman Empire. They defeated Glaber after using vines to climb down Mount Vesuvius in the dark, and sneak behind enemy lines. They used corpses to create fake sentries in order to fool Varinius. The used sticks and fire to burn workers which were digging ditches at Bruttium. Then, they snuck past the enemy during a winter storm before making their final stand at the Siler River.
            The escaped gladiators started the Third Servile War, a war to remember. They proved their worth despite Spartacus’s death and their defeat. They continuously showed ingenuity, resourcefulness, and courage against the Romans. The slave army showed what lengths they were willing to take in order to make a point to the wealthy Roman citizens. Unfortunately, their point of fighting for freedom proved useless. For three years Spartacus and the slave army used tactics that helped them to survive against and defeat the Roman army during many battles.

 ENDNOTES

---

[1] Jona Lendering, “Spartacus,” Livius.org, last modified December 30, 2008. http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html
[2]Keith Bradley, “Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome,” Ancient History, BBC, last modified February 17, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml
[3] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, vol. 3, trans. Aubrey Stewart and George Long (Seven Treasures Publications, 2008), Kindle edition, loc.719 of 10516.
[4] N. S. Gills, Spartacus: The Slave Revolt of Spartacus the Gladiator, Ancient/Classical History, accessed May 7, 2013. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/slavesandslavery/a/spartacus.htm
[5] Appian, The Civil Wars, (Waxkeep Publishing, 2013), Kindle edition, loc. 1308 of 8425.
[6] Publius Annius Florus, Florus on Spartacus, trans. Edward Forster, Ancient/Classical History, last modified December 30, 2008. http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus_t03.html
[7] Ibid.
[8] Lendering, “Spartacus.”
[9] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, loc. 729 of 10516.
[10] Appian, The Civil Wars, loc. 1315 of 8425.
[11] Aldo Schiavone, Spartacus, trans. Jeremy Carden, ed. Guilio Einudi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 2.
[12] Florus, Florus on Spartacus.
[13] Appian, The Civil Wars, loc. 1308 of 8425.
[14] Sextus Julius Frontinus, The Strategemata, trans. Charles E. Bennet (Seattle, WA: The Praetorian Press, 2012), Kindle edition, loc. 734 of 799.
[15] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, loc. 737-747 of 10516.
[16] Titus Livy, Periochae, trans. Jona Lendering, Ancient/Classical History, accessed May 7, 2013. http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/periochae/periochae091.html#95
[17] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, loc. 766 of 10516.
[18] Lendering, “Spartacus.”
[19] Appian, The Civil Wars, loc. 1333-1339 of 8425.
[20] Ibid., loc. 1343-1350 of 8425.
[21] Adrian Goldsworthy, “He Was Spartacus; What Do We Actually Know About the Most Famous Gladiator in History?” Wall Street Journal (Online), April 5, 2013. ProQuest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appian. The Civil Wars. Waxkeep Publishing, 2013. Kindle edition.

Bradley, Keith. “Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome.” Ancient History, BBC, Last Modified February 17, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml

Florus, Publius Annius. Florus on Spartacus. Translated by Edward Forster. Ancient/Classical History. Last Modified December 30, 2008. http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus_t03.html

Frontinus, Sextus Julius. The Strategemata. Translated by Charles E. Bennet. Seattle, WA: The Praetorian Press, 2012. Kindle edition.

Gill, N.S. Spartacus: The Slave Revolt of Spartacus the Gladiator. Ancient/Classical History. Accessed May 7, 2013. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/slavesandslavery/a/spartacus.htm

Goldsworthy, Adrian. "He was Spartacus; What Do We Actually Know About the Most Famous Gladiator in History?" Wall Street Journal (Online), April 5, 2013. ProQuest.

Lendering, Jona. “Spartacus.” Livius.org. Last modified December 30, 2008. http://www.livius.org/so-st/spartacus/spartacus.html

Livy, Titus. Periochae. Translated by Jona Lendering. Ancient/Classical History. Accessed May 7, 2013. http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/periochae/periochae091.html#95

Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives. Vol. 3. Translated by George Long. Seven Treasures Publications, 2008. Kindle edition.

Schiavone, Aldo. Spartacus. Translated by Jeremy Carden. Edited by Guilio Einudi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2013.