# The Vlad Enigma



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2009)

The Vlad Enigma

Background Information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Vlad &#354;epe&#351; in Romanian), also known as Vlad Dracula, or simply Dracula (1431  December 1476), was a Wallachian (present-day southern Romania) voivode. His three reigns were in 1448, 14561462, and 1476. Vlad the Impaler is known for the exceedingly cruel punishments he imposed during his reign.[1] Impalement was &#354;epe&#351;'s preferred method of torture and execution.[2]

Story

There are many historical accounts of Vlad Tepes.  In two of them, the same story is told, but the outcome of the story is different.  The story regards the travels of two monks.  They are both lost in a storm at night and they happen upon Vlads fortress and beg him for shelter for the night.  Vlad, fancying himself as a good Christian man, welcomes the  monks into this castle and proceeds to invite the monks to a feast.  As the story goes, Vlad asks both monks a question.

What do you think of my rule?

The monks, who are both knowledgeable about Vlad, the politics of the region, and Vlads harsh policies, give two distinct answers.  One monk tells Vlad the truth and says that his rule is harsh, unchristian, inhumane.  The other monk tells Vlad that his rule, although harsh, is just considering the times, and is the only real choice a good Christian can make.

Vlad has one of the monks impaled on the spot.  Depending on the historical account, Vlad either impales the flatterer or the monk who tells Vlad the truth.  Which monk did Vlad impale?  Why?

The Enigma

If you were one of the monks in this situation, what would you do?  Would you tell Vlad the truth or would you tell him what he wanted to hear?

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn depending on the answer you give.  

For example, people who decide to tell Vlad the Truth may have a great deal of courage in the face of death and are naïve enough to believe that even someone like Vlad the Impaler might suddenly see the error of his ways.  These people tend to be very trusting and make good public servants and/or bureaucrats.  

One the other hand, people who decide to flatter Vlad, tend to have a more pragmatic view of society and are good survivalists.  They also tend toward cynicism, paranoia, and a general distrust of authority.  These people often tend to make a living on their own and prefer to take care of their kith and kin above all.

Of course this is a gross simplification, but then again, the point of this enigma is to provoke discussion.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> If you were one of the monks in this situation, what would you do?


 
I would have taken my chances with the storm.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I would have taken my chances with the storm.



Lol!  You get impaled for wandering around like a stranger.


----------



## thardey (Mar 11, 2009)

I would impale the one who lied to me.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Vlad: is he the sort of man who would put more value on the truth, or his reputation?

Now, only a great fool would assume that his enemy (or host) would make the same decision I would make, and since I am not a great fool, I would clearly choose to lie to Vlad. However, Vlad must have known I was not a great fool, so clearly I must choose to tell the truth.

As you know, Vlad's victims were entirely made up of criminals, and criminals are used to being lied to, and therefore I must clearly also lie.

Yet, Vlad must have suspected that I knew the origins of the Enigma, and therefore would expect me to lie to him, so therefore I must tell the truth.

Vlad had tortured and killed his own subjects, which means he's exceptionally cruel, so he could have forced the question, trusting in his cruelty to force an honest answer out of me, so clearly I cannot choose to tell the truth. Yet he also considered himself a protector, which means he must uphold morality, and morality must have taught him that lying is immoral, and so therefore I cannot choose to lie.

:yakko:


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2009)

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.


----------



## thardey (Mar 11, 2009)

Wait 'till I get going! Now, where was I?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 11, 2009)

My answer would be "Who am I to judge a man who has taken me out of the storm and given me shelter and food"? "

I would go on and say"your judgement is with God and not with me so let us not make haste and enjoy the feast"


----------



## exile (Mar 11, 2009)

But you can't really turn this into some version of the Liar paradox or the Barber paradox... because we're not given the same information about Vlad that we are in those classic paradoxes.

Vlad's Enigma really isn't a paradox in the same way (thardey's clever reconstructing of it notwithstanding)because we're not given enough information about Vlad, particularly the all-imporant elements of that kind of paradox: 'Vlad always....' The fact is, Vlad can do completely different, seemingly contradictory things on different days. On on any give day, he may reward honesty or he may reward flattery. In that sense, there's no actual resolution to this question, because depending on which day of his life it was, either of the two 'guests' could have wound up being impaled. 

Basically, you'd have to _guess_ just what his intentions were on the day. It's not really the stuff of a great classic logic puzzle, alas...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2009)

It's not really intended to be a classic logic puzzle, I think of it more as a metaphor for the human condition.  Basically, what you described, Exile, is what humans do every day.  We need to _predict_ human behavior.  We certainly hope that we aren't sitting in front of homocidal maniacs when we are doing it though!

Anyway, its great for discussion because its provacative metaphor.


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 12, 2009)

thardey said:


> I would impale the one who lied to me.
> 
> But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Vlad: is he the sort of man who would put more value on the truth, or his reputation?
> 
> ...


 
Hey! Vlad, is that Jesus behind you?....gulp..gulp....... HA! ha! ha! ha! ....ackk :nuke:


As to the question.......... 

I would tell him half-truths and hope I'd wind up....mostly dead.




Michael


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2009)

He probably impaled the one who looked the tastiest.


----------



## thardey (Mar 12, 2009)

exile said:


> But you can't really turn this into some version of the Liar paradox or the Barber paradox... because we're not given the same information about Vlad that we are in those classic paradoxes.
> 
> Basically, you'd have to _guess_ just what his intentions were on the day. It's not really the stuff of a great classic logic puzzle, alas...


 


maunakumu said:


> It's not really intended to be a classic logic puzzle, I think of it more as a metaphor for the human condition. Basically, what you described, Exile, is what humans do every day. We need to _predict_ human behavior. We certainly hope that we aren't sitting in front of homocidal maniacs when we are doing it though!
> 
> Anyway, its great for discussion because its provacative metaphor.


 
I thought of it more as the "Lady or the Tiger" kind of question. The answer tells more about you than your logic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2009)

When I've got some spare time in class, I'll throw out the Vlad Enigma to my students and we'll discuss.  Kids are mostly grossed out by Vlad's atrocities, as they well should be, and want to talk about why in the heck someone would even think about doing that to another person.  

Anyway, I can see this being the only question on a job application for some crazy bureaucracies.  If you answer that Vlad impaled the flatterer its likely you've got at least some faith in systems and people, even if its misplaced enough to trust a homicidal maniac...LOL!


----------



## LordOfWu (Mar 12, 2009)

thardey said:


> I would impale the one who lied to me.
> 
> But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Vlad: is he the sort of man who would put more value on the truth, or his reputation?
> 
> ...



Man, that just made my morning! One of my favorite scene's from one of my favorite movies!  Well Done!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 12, 2009)

Wait... can you ask this question again except this time instead of monks its Superman and the Silver Surfer 

Other than that I am with CoryKS but then thardey puts forth a rather strong case as well but I can't quite figure out if vlad beat a Spaniard and a giant before the monks got there


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> Wait... can you ask this question again except this time instead of monks its Superman and the Silver Surfer
> 
> Other than that I am with CoryKS but then thardey puts forth a rather strong case as well but I can't quite figure out if vlad beat a Spaniard and a giant before the monks got there


 
A Wallachian beating a Spaniard and a giant?  That would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable.


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 12, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> If you were one of the monks in this situation, what would you do? Would you tell Vlad the truth or would you tell him what he wanted to hear?
> 
> Some interesting conclusions can be drawn depending on the answer you give.
> 
> ...


 
Since either way you could be killed, I would tell him the truth. My thinking is that in doing so, I had at least held to my convictions before I died.
The odd thing is that I fit the "profile" of the flatterer (bolded above).
Interesting post -vampfeed-


----------



## jim777 (Apr 15, 2009)

Late to the thread, but given it was at a dinner, I would have heard the question, pretended to think deeply about it, and then quickly stabbed Vlad in the throat with my butter knife.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2009)

jim777 said:


> Late to the thread, but given it was at a dinner, I would have heard the question, pretended to think deeply about it, and then quickly stabbed Vlad in the throat with my butter knife.


 
NAH!!!!

That wouldn't work....don't forget Vlad's a Vampire too and you would need a wooden stake


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 15, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> A Wallachian beating a Spaniard and a giant? That would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable.


You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.



I'd probably pretend to choke on some food and excuse myself from the feast. Better safe than sorry. I'm neither valiant nor a flatterrer...I can live with coward...lviing is good


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> .I can live with coward...lviing is good



Yeah, especially without a 10 foot stake jammed up your anus.  Sign me up for coward!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> you keep using that word...i do not think it means what you think it means.


 
inconceivable


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 15, 2009)

I don't agree with your profiles of honest men and flatterers.

From my POV, the honest man was probably the more cynical of the two, and therefore very brave to speak the truth. Principle above all else is the driving force behind an honest man.

Flatterers OTOH are more likely to put their OWN survival above all else. Often they will justify to themselves that they have to "for the sake of my family", but really, it's just self interest/fear.


----------



## Stac3y (Apr 15, 2009)

Anybody want a peanut? 


:boing2::boing2:


----------



## bluekey88 (Apr 15, 2009)

My way doesn't seem bery sporting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2009)

girlbug2 said:


> I don't agree with your profiles of honest men and flatterers.
> 
> From my POV, the honest man was probably the more cynical of the two, and therefore very brave to speak the truth. Principle above all else is the driving force behind an honest man.
> 
> Flatterers OTOH are more likely to put their OWN survival above all else. Often they will justify to themselves that they have to "for the sake of my family", but really, it's just self interest/fear.



I know, its very generalized.  It can easily be argued either way.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 15, 2009)

Id Kill Vlad, seize power and bang a bunch of hot Romanian chicks.

Bwom chicka wah wah.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Id Kill Vlad, seize power and bang a bunch of hot Romanian chicks.
> 
> Bwom chicka wah wah.



Yeah, that would change the "Impaler" story...


----------



## Yew (Apr 22, 2009)

Hmm.If you think about it, the true version of who got impaled must have stated it was the monk who told the truth who was killed. Because the monk actually had an illegitimate child whose descendants in the future migrated to Ireland.

One descendant decided to avenge his ancestors death by writing a novel and associating the word Dracul to the main character/villain in the novel. But this time,unlike his ancestor who spoke the truth,he made up lies about the main character only having a strong thirst for blood without detailing his victories against the Ottomans.

His name was Bram Stoker.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Yeah, that would change the "Impaler" story...


 

:lol:

Yes, yes it would


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 22, 2009)

I think that Vlad was someone that was extremely oversensitive and ambitious.  I believe he must have had great reverance for christianity and the figure of jesus, but when you read about his cruel nature, you wonder exactly what his beliefs were and how he interpreted the bible.  One also has to wonder as to what on earth could have happened to him that made him so cruel.  Possibly it has to do with his father being killed as a traitor, losing his wife and infant son in the same night.  Wife believing that escape from enemy seige impossible, suicided jumping into the princess river.  Infant was supposedly dropped by a servant fleeing on horseback.  Also, he spent time in captivity.  According to the one story i came by, many years later, peasants presented to the ruler vlad, a boy that they had found as an infant claiming it was the lost son.


It is clear that he was a great military leader and strategist as well as a powerful figure of the times, part of the socalled order of the dragon that had sworn to battle the enemies of christianity.  Chances are that many of his initial attrocities were based on a certain degree of reason, but it is known that once one takes part of murderous activities, there is a chance of become extremely megalomanic and psychotically dependant on violence as a solution. 
  Basically, i would sum it up by saying that vlad was extremely judgemental of the little things.  I believe that he didn't care about what was right and wrong nearly as much as he cared about the way people would address him or even esteem others.   
In many ways, i think that his feelings were more than often correct and justified.  However, his course of action was often extremely cruel.  It's hard to comment and judge on things that happened so long ago and it's also difficult discerning to what degree such actions may have been necessary in light of the great spiritual and territorial wars at the time.

So, if i were in the position of the of dealing with someone like vlad, i would not say or do anything to piss him off.  there are many cultures that are very easily offended and vlad was such an individual. I'm guessing that one simple stupid look or anything said with a forked tounge would mean instant shishkebab.  So i would not get indignant on him unless i really believed in my cause or am ready to die.  Even then i would play on his position of power and emplor him crying out rather than trying to convince him with detatched intellect or indirect kinds of threats.  He believed himself to be a 'man of great power'. 

Having seen many battles vlad was probably a very 'street smart' and cunning individual.  I think it is now safe to speculate,however, that he was not well capable of dealing with certain kinds of attacks with anything other than violence.  Indeed, if one loses faith in spiritual power or becomes obsessed with worldly power, it is common for people to resort to violence. Still it's hard to judge things that are almost legends rather than accurate historical depictions.

The case reminds me of the story in the bible where a foreigner attacks one of moses' people and moses comes in to defend by striking the attacker down dead, whereupon moses saw his subject look up at him and saw that in that moment the man did not believe in god anymore but only believed in moses. 

If one looks closer at the notion that vlad believed himself to be a man of power, one can see that it is at the same time a cry for love or forcefully demanding respect.  A tough kind of situation that many ify leaders of all ages including contemporary ones have issues with.  Also, because killing and evil deeds no matter how whitewashed by reason of plight, will eventually get the better of any man that has a shred of humanity left in him.  

The true monsters and vampires of all ages, however, are the powermongers that controll people without geting their hands dirty at all and actually care little to understand the nature of brotherhood, mercy or justice.


movie to come out this year anyhow, so we're a bit ahead of things.  Will be interesting to see the movie.  Apparently it will try to show vlad as a kind of national hero that played an instrumental role in saving europe from invasion by the turks.  My romanian friend told my that one of the most strategic things that the army had done(other than killing masses and masses), was to at some point stop the food and supply rations of the invaders of reaching those that had already penetrated deep into europe already knocking at the gates of vienna.  There is a park in vienna called the türkenschanzpark where it is reported the turks had advanced to.  There is also a huge statue of a ukranian kossak soldier and a statue of a huge horse of his.  He is depicted sitting smoking a pipe with a banjo-like instrument and a musket around his shoulder  along with the ukranian sword that was recently shown here on mt.  The romanians role in stopping the invasion is someone underplayed.  These ukranian soldiers of the time where among others called in to assist the men fighting just outside the city.




j


----------

