Euhemerism

I said yesterday that I was going to talk about the writings of Ælfric of Eynsham, and I will, but I want to explain the term Euhemerism first. Euhemerism is an attempt to shed light on mythology by interpreting it as springing from actual historical events. Or, in the words of an American historian, it is "the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified." 

It assumes that real events became exaggerated and fictionalized in the oral transmission. The term comes from a late 4th-century BCE Greek, Euhemerus, who tried to rationalize mythology. Many early Greek philosophers were in agreement. In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates offers an explanation of the story of an Athenian princess "taken away" by the north wind, Boreas. Socrates points out the place where there is a temple to Boreas where a wind might have knocked a young woman off her feet and onto rocks where she was killed.

Early Christian apologists used Euhemerism against paganism by declaring:

That those are no gods whom the common people worship, is known from this: they were formerly kings, who on account of their royal memory subsequently began to be adored by their people even in death. Thence temples were founded to them; thence images were sculptured to retain the countenances of the deceased by the likeness; and men sacrificed victims, and celebrated festal days, by way of giving them honour. Thence to posterity those rites became sacred, which at first had been adopted as a consolation.[from St. Cyprian]

The Middle Ages, and writers like Vincent of Beauvais and Roger Bacon, were willing to believe that supernatural beings were not imaginary, but were part of the natural order of things created by God. Men like Marsilius Ficino produced encyclopedic works to explain the hierarchy of demons, spirits, angels, archangels, etc., in God's creation.

Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda (c.1220) paints the Norse gods as great leaders and kings, tracing back to that great foundation of so much medieval culture, the Trojan War.

The Modern Era also sometimes looks for historic origins of legendary characters, exaggerating them. Dracula, Paul Bunyan, Robin Hood—searching for the kernel of truth that grew into a legend.

But tomorrow we'll talk about Ælfric of Eynsham. Promise.

The Night Attack at Târgoviște

Most of the history of human beings was spent in the dark; that is, without efficient illumination. There were ways and ways of maneuvering in the dark of the night, but they were a far cry from flashlights and streetlights. Accomplishing tasks in the dead of night were hampered by the lack of lighting. War, especially, was difficult, because you needed to distinguish friend from foe, and not trip over things. Military engagements were rarely staged at night.

So when Vlad Tsepes, voivode of Wallachia, chose a night-time attack on Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire, he showed particular daring. Here's why and it happened.

Mehmed had aided Vlad in re-taking Wallachia from Vlad's usurping cousin, but was outraged that Vlad would not therefore pay him homage (he impaled the two envoys sent to collect the homage, called jizya). 

But let's jump back a bit. Mehmed would have really liked free rein of the Danube, whose left bank was controlled by Wallachia from which an attack on Ottoman ships could come. Pope Pius II had called for a Crusade against the Ottomans in 1460, but Vlad was the only potentate who showed any interest in it. The lack of enthusiasm for a Crusade emboldened Mehmed to spread his power further. In pursuit of his goal, he wound up capturing a friend of Vlad's, torturing his men and sawing Vlad's friend in half.

This is when Vlad wrote to Mehmed, saying he could not afford to pay the jizya, nor could he accept Mehmed's offer to meet and negotiate because he feared Hungary would try to conquer Wallachia if he left. That is when Mehmed discovered that Vlad was going to actually meet with Hungary's Matthias Corvinus, and Mehmed sent men to arrange an ambush. Vlad learned about it beforehand and ambushed the ambushers, attacking with handguns while they were trapped in a narrow pass.

Shortly after, Vlad invaded Bulgaria and caused great devastation and death. When Mehmed next entered Bulgaria, he discovered (by Vlad's count, in a letter to Corvinus) 23,884 Turks impaled waiting for him. There were several skirmishes and battles between Vlad's and Mehmed's armies, and Vlad prevailed in all.

Later, Mehmed advanced toward the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște. On 17 June 1462, Vlad attacked during the night. He was prepared: he had disguised himself as a Turk and snuck into the camp, wandering around the make sure he knew the layout of the camp and where the Sultan's tent was. He attacked in the night with thousands of horsemen, blowing bugles and carrying torches (see illustration). An Italian chronicler claims they attacked several times from three hours after sunset until four in the morning. A recounting by a Wallachian veteran claims that Mehmed fled shamelessly in the confusion.

Vlad's army was pursued days later, leading to another grisly sight: the road leading to the Bulgarian capital was lined with 20,000 impaled Ottomans. Vlad certainly understood the value of psychological warfare.

A note on the name "Dracula." It simply means "Son of Dracul." Vlad was the third of that name, the son of Vlad Dracul II. Dracul means "Dragon." So did Vlad III get his bloodthirstiness from his father, along with the name? We'll look at dad Dracul next time.

Dracula versus the Turks

Long before he engaged in the bloodthirsty military tactics that made him the historical inspiration for a vampire count, Vlad Tsepes (a young teen) and his brother Radu (12; called "the handsome") were hostages of the Ottoman Empire to ensure the loyalty of their father, Vlad II "The Dragon," Voivode (Prince, military leader) of Wallachia.

Vlad's father and eldest brother were killed when a governor of Hungary invaded Wallachia in 1447 and installed Vlad's cousin Vladislav, but then Hungary tried to attack the Ottomans with Vladislav along. The Ottomans decided the best counter was to invade Wallachia with Vlad Tsepes along. It was successful, but when Vladislav re-invaded within a year, Vlad had to return to the Ottoman Empire for safety.

Later, Vladislav's alliance with Hungary deteriorated, and Hungary threw its influence in with Vlad, so he invaded Wallachia, and after some bloody exchanges including starting the practice of impaling enemies (and earning the nickname "Vlad the Impaler"), he installed himself as voivode in 1460.

Because he had been freed and had help from the Ottomans, Sultan Mehmed II sent two envoys to Vlad to demand homage; Vlad had them impaled (of course). In February 1462 he invaded Ottoman territory, impaling (of course) tens of thousands of Turks. Mehmed decided that revenge was best served by replacing Vlad in Wallachia with his younger brother Radu. Vlad decided an alliance with the King of Hungary, Matthias Corvinus, was his next best option for help. Mehmed learned that Vlad was heading to see Corvinus, and had his men ambush Vlad. Vlad managed to escape the ambush.

His next move is known as the Night Attack at Târgoviște. That, and the end of Dracula, will be presented tomorrow.