History Match Up: Skanderbeg VS Vlad the Impaler

George Castriot/Skanderbeg

VS!

Vlad The Impaler/Dracula

Settings.

• Both in their prime, fully healed and in peak shape.
• Both in their standard gear.
• This is a sword fight.
• Fight takes place inside a battle arena.
• Fight till death.
• Who wins and why.

A small intro for those two warriors.

Skanderbeg, was born in 1405 to the noble Albanian Kastrioti family. Sultan Murad II took him hostage at a young age and he served the Ottoman Empire during the next twenty years. In 1444, he was appointed as a commander which proclaimed him "Chief of the League of the Albanian people". For 25 years, from 1443 to 1468, Skanderbeg's 10,000 man army marched through Ottoman territory winning against consistently larger and better supplied Ottoman forces. Skanderbeg's military skills presented a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion, and he was considered by many in western Europe to be a model of Christian resistance against the Ottoman Muslims. The Ottoman Turks gave him the name Iskender bey, meaning "Lord Alexander", or "Leader Alexander", which has been rendered as Skanderbeg in the English versions of his biographies, the combined appellative is assumed to have been a comparison of Skanderbeg's military skill to that of Alexander the Great.

Dracula, was born in 1431, Romania. At 13, Vlad was held as political hostage by the Ottoman Turks. Despite increasing his cultural capital with the Ottomans, Vlad was not at all pleased to be in Turkish hands. Conversely, Vlad was defiant and constantly punished for his impudence. It has been suggested that his traumatic experiences among the Ottomans may have molded him into the sadistic man he grew up to be, especially in regards to his penchant for impaling. In 1457, Vlad helped his cousin Stephen ascend Moldavia's throne by providing 6,000 horsemen as military assistance against Petru Aron. Later in 1459, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II sent envoys to Vlad to urge him to pay a delayed tribute of 10,000 ducats and 500 recruits into the Ottoman forces. Vlad refused and impaled over 23,000 Turks. Mehmed then raised a great army with the objective to conquer Wallachia and annex it to his empire. The two leaders fought a series of skirmishes, the most notable one being the Night Attack where Vlad attacked the Turkish camp in the night in an attempt to kill Mehmed. The assassination attempt failed and Mehmed marched to the Wallachian capital of Târgovişte, where he discovered another 20,000 impaled Turks. Horrified, the Sultan and his troops retreated.

Vlad impales him.

Vlad wins , because Dracula~!

Surprised I was called out - 'cause I know jack shit about these dudes.

Dracula.

You could read the intro and then search a bit on google if you want to..

Vlad the Impaler.

By the accounts given (I know nothing about their real skills in combat), I'd say Skanderbeg due to his better record of fighting actual battles while Vlad seemed to be better at terrorizing.

Neither of these guys was a brawler. They are commanders

People should start reading some history these days. Probably one of the most important legacies of Skanderbeg lies with his military mastery. The trouble that he caused to the Ottoman Empire's military forces was such that when the Ottomans found the grave of Skanderbeg, they opened it and made amulets of his bones .. believing that these would confer bravery on the wearer. Indeed, the damage inflicted to the Ottoman Army was such that Skanderbeg is said to have slain three thousand Ottomans with his own hand during his campaigns. Among stories told about him was that he never slept more than five hours at night and could cut two men asunder with a single stroke of his scimitar, cut through iron helmets, kill a wild boar with a single stroke and cleave the head of a buffalo with another .. lol.

Dracula isn't so scary compared to him now .. is he? xD

Skanderbeg due to strength and superior skill.

Why should I care about some ancient dudes who have no bearing, on the here and now?

Cool setup and match but I`m not sure on who wins here.

Why should you care for Superman ( for instance ) which he doesn't even exist .. at least those two dudes were real and two of the most important Ottoman revolution commanders those days had to offer. Thanks to them.. Balkans are safe, Europe is safe .. :) Otherwise the Ottoman empire would scatter tremendously more. That's why you need to learn some history ..

Because Superman actually entertains me? LAWL. I read upon history, but these two dudes, nor their history, exactly represent a niche of the past I'm interested in.

Thanks man.. what's your opinion..?

Why should i read about a book where the elites write the story? At least with Superman, you are not taken for a fool. You are inspired, transcended, to become a better man. I mean without Superman, planet earth wouldnt be safe. Jesus wouldnt do better, with higher honesty.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

Well, both had fairly high-ranking fathers and seemed to have some kind of combat training. However, Vlad's father was a senior knight so I'll assume Vlad was taught much better. Ultimately, though, because they lack reliable personal combat feats, I'll have to say Vlad simply because of how cruel and barbaric he was. He was a straight up psycho so he'd go ape in a fight, I think.

Why should we care about archaeology? Or paleontology? Or astronomy? Or evolutionary biology? The past is important; we can learn a lot from it, especially our human history. Plus, it makes you look all smart and stuff. ^_^

All of the crossed out is boring as hell to me. Astronomy is one of my absolute favorite things in the world, while my interest in Evolutionary biology fluctuates. As I said before - I only read what entertains and interest me. None of these dudes, or their archaic past actually fit the bill.

Though, we straying so far Off-topic the OP may flag me, so I'm going to leave it there.

Skdanderbeg was more renowned as a warrior, but there really isn't enough information to make a call either way.

Skanderbeg stomps

skand

I don't know

Your welcome :)

I`m not sure but I could see it going either way.

Thanks for the tag! Great battle! I'm giving the edge to Vlad.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Seriously though, there is a lot of really interesting things throughout history, some of it almost comic book level of interesting.

@dawnone what do you think about this?

@reno117vlad and the outcome of this battle is not a good one. vlad did not only come in a more recent time meaning he's training would be more valid. but he's ruthless and cruel habits would be carried along with him in his tactics and fighting style this is the guy who bathed in blood of virgins and impaled millions you would assume just meeting someone this ruthless would throw you off. same should be applied to skanberg which could affect his fighting prowess or fight moral in a sense while vlad has no such conscious or awarness

hmm...

Vlad IMO.

@randomsid:

Seriously though, there is a lot of really interesting things throughout history, some of it almost comic book level of interesting.

>Implying not giving a shit about these two = all history is boring and uninteresting.

>Top-Kek.

This is what you said:

Why should I care about some ancient dudes who have no bearing, on the here and now?

That implies you don't care about history. Oh well. The point is still the same.

Skand was born in 1405 while Vlad in 1431, meaning when Vlad was born Skand was 26 years old.. Vlad's training is nowhere near more valid than Skand's by that logic. Furthermore, both Skand and Vlad had been raised under the same exact way because when the Turks came knocking on the gates with a sheet of notebook paper that said, "Tribute or Death?" obviously their parents would hand over their sons and agreed to pay an annual fee. With the only difference that Skand quickly proved himself as one of the toughest men in the entire Ottoman Corps, shredding his enemies across Asia and Europe, and when this sh*t-kicker wasn't eating shards of broken glass or jamming cinders in his eyes.. Skand commanded a cavalry regiment, governed over nine provinces, and once personally beat the snot out of a Mongol and two Persians in the Throne Room of the Ottoman Court after they were being disrespectful to the Sultan. On account of his ultimate bad-motherf*cker-dom.. the Sultan bestowed Skand with an appropriately badass title.. Arnavuthu Iskender Bey, meaning "Lord Alexander the Albanian". So, somewhat abruptly, at the age of 38, Skanderbeg made a decision that would impact his life forever.. he took a company of 300 Albanian Janissaries and deserted the Turkish army in the middle of their battle against the badass Hungarian Crusader John Hunyadi. Skand marched his AWOL army through Albania, straight to the gates of his ancestral castle, which was now under Ottoman rule and presented a forged document to the governor claiming that Skanderbeg had been appointed Turkish Governor of the region. As soon as the legitimate Turkish governor of his Castle hit the road, Skanderbeg tore down the Ottoman flag and flew his own battle-standard from the parapets. So yeah, there's more than one badass way to occupy a city. Anyway that was just a summary actually just for you to know who Skand really is and the story goes on.. nevertheless, Vlad never reached the number of impaling millions, just lots of thousands which still is very psycho.

Anyway I just wanted to prove you that both were provided to train with the same combat training.

@reno117: wow you know your'e history what i deduced from that is i need to read up on my history lol it seems the reputation of vlad i wasn't as horrifying as popular belief just another exaggerated and stretched out tale made by the media to suit entertainment purposes making my basis for the argument invalid. with that said vlad wins for hitler moustache

@dawnone: Again, not a solid answer.. this is a one on one battle, they don't have troops with them, so it's pure strength, speed and who's the better swordsman. By their feats you come up with the winner..

So, who do you believe the winner would be..?

@reno117: da hell the last bit was a joke lol the victor of this match would be skanberg by his conquest and acheivements if that were the case as skanberg seemed more milatary versed a and would specialise in more hand to hand confrontation unlike vlad who hid behind his armys. from what i understood from your'e text.

@rouflex: pretty sure Jesus has better inspiration feats

@robertloucksjr: No proof. Do you think earth is the only planet in the galaxy?

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

@reno117 sorry I'm late---I've been REAAALLL busy lately. This is a cool, far from the norm, thought provoking match up!

In pure prep, it appears Skanderbeg is superior. In actual hands on, get your hands dirty conflict, Vlad seems to have a distinctive edge. So...

If this was an army against army conflict, with the two leading their respective warriors into battle, I would put my money on Skanderbeg. If for reason the two faced each other directly, Vlad's viciousness, it would seem, is too much for Skandebeg to handle.

Army vs. Army scenario: Skanderbeg.

Man to Man scenario: Vlad.

As this is a man to man, inside an arena skirmish---

Winner-Vlad The Impaler/Dracula

Seems legit.. good!

It is said skanderbeg personally killed 3000 men on the battlefield.. ,vlad just did some gruesome shit on the captured soldiers, even in his own people just to implant fear...that doesnt make him a strong man

Skanderbeg would take him out with just one hand..

late to the party..
Skanderbeg, partially because i'm biased (i'm Albanian).
but I feel like Skanderbeg would have won anyway because he raised in the military ranks with the ottomans and then he was able to prevent them from having a strong hold in Albania and Italy, so he had the mind set for warfare and the strategies to go about it.. up till he died that is. I don't get that with vlad...but I may be missing pieces with vlads impact with strategies with warfare outside of impaling his enemies.

Vlad beat the f*** out of him.

Skanderbeg opposed in a castle in Albania (its still there today in Kruja) with 5.000-10.000 men, Sultan Mehmet's army of more than 150.0000 men for three consecutive times in history. Eventually the sultan gave up.

He was said to be very strong as his sword proves it, very heavy sword (today in a museum in switzerland).

Skanderbeg was a strategic commander and one of the best fighters trained in the Ottoman Empire. Vlad Dracul was also a very skillfull fighter trained in the Ottoman Empire so its very difficoult to say. Plus Dracul was 20 years younger so hmmm.

I would bet on Skanderbeg if Dracula does not transform.lol

Ps: It it wasn't for these two warrior commanders then nowdays everyone in europe would speak turkish.

Little Alexander is just the better version of Vlad in almost every way…this is a stomp in his favor. Skanderbeg is the most winningest general in recorded history with a smaller force vs much larger force. Skanderbeg also used to battle in gladiatorial pits for the sultan’s amusement so he wins in personal combat, he was far superior in diplomacy annd setting up coalitions …and not to mention his helmet is twice as cool. To make this fair, this should be Vlad Tepes vs John Hunyadi

In a war, skanderbeg if we compare their relative performances against the ottoman empire. Vlad never really managed to beat the ottoman army, he continuously retreated while throwing every trick in the book at them hoping they would slow down or get scared off. Not surprising considering the gap between his army and the ottoman army, and he did have heavy success considering the circumstances, but he was still on the losing side. Skanderbeg, on the other hand, was actually beating ottoman forces in the battlefield while outnumbered 8 to 1 through guerrila warfare. There's also the fact that much of the tactics vlad used against the ottomans were based on psychological pressure, which would spectacularly fail against skanderbeg. Plus though their armies are roughly equally big, skanderbeg’s army is significantly more capable and trained, most of vlad’s army consistent of peasants. So open field, close field, skanderbeg wins.

A hand to hand fight is harder to say. Vlad was trained under the ottoman empire, and there are stories of him personally beating up his enemies/assasinators up close and forcing them to dig their own grave before murdering them. Skanderbeg was also trained under the ottoman empire, and was one of the best commanders in the empire before he rebelled. He is also consistently described as a huge, very strong man, while vlad was a little stocky but short. I'd give the edge to skanderbeg, he almost certainly had a physical edge over vlad and I would say is the more skilled and experienced warrior. Vlad is more ruthless, but as long as both sides are trained and willing to kill, ruthlessness is hardly a factor in a fight.

Gotta go with Skanderbeg.