What do you think?
Rate this book
Dracula's Wars: Vlad the Impaler and His Rivals
According to Stoker's novel, Dracula was a cultured man. In reality he was a Romanian warlord of the 15th century. He gained his name, Vlad the Impaler, because his favored execution method was to run a spear through his victim’s lower body, then stand them upright so the spear pierced the vital organs. This full history details his bloodthirsty military campaigns against the Turks and Bulgars. He pursued vicious guerrilla tactics, a scorched earth retreat, and tortured his captives. He was finally assassinated by his former Turkish allies.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published July 31, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 14, 2019
As mentioned in earlier reviews, this book mostly covers events before and after the life of Vlad Dracula. The title is misleading. It also struggles to present the information in an unbiased manner. There is a clear dislike of Vlad himself that comes through the material, making it seem odd that the author chose to write about this subject. Preferential treatment is given to other historical personages instead. Biased opinions, like "These were horrors which Vlad Dracula would have been proud to have inflicted," (Waterson 226) present suppositions without substantiation. That quote is in reference to the following in reference to a priest being skinned alive during a massacre in Serbia in 1941. The statement is presented in a fact-like manner but the truth is that the author cannot possibly know what Vlad would or would not think or feel about any situation, let alone one that occurred approximately 500 years after his death. The statement was included in the text purely to attempt to sway the reader into his way of thinking. Overall, I was disappointed with this book. I was looking for an unbiased account of the life and times of Vlad Dracula. Although this book presents a different interpretation of the history of Vlad's life, the qualitative references to Vlad are often speculative at best. A truly factual narrative would not attempt to interpret Vlad's, or anyone else's, thoughts and feelings without at least including direct quotes from the person as supporting evidence.
May 17, 2017
I was expecting a biography of Vlad Dracula, and that’s not exactly what I got. This was more a history of several generations before and after Dracula, with a focus on military and political events. Even though it wasn’t what I expected, I enjoyed it. I haven’t read a ton about Eastern Europe in the fifteenth century, so I found it fascinating.
The book’s subtitle is Vlad the Impaler and his rivals, and there’s as much about Hunyadi and Skanderbeg in this book as there is about Dracula. I didn’t come away with much knowledge about Vlad Dracula’s personal life and personality (other than the whole ruthless thing). The book shows him as a petty tyrant, a harsh, violent man in a world full of harsh, violent men. He was gifted in war, but ultimately unsuccessful at peace.
To be fair, Wallachia was in a tight spot in the fifteenth century, squeezed between powerful foes like Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Anyone who wanted to stay on the throne needed the alliance of one or the other, and the question of which power had the upper hand was in frequent flux.
Dracula had several reigns on the Wallachian throne (he was from Wallachia, not Transylvania). During one reign, he slaughtered the boyars who opposed him (or who might have been thinking of opposing him) and persecuted the merchants in various economically influential towns. Then he switched alliance from the Ottomans to the Hungarians, and Mehmet II came to punish him. Dracula drove the sultan from Wallachia, despite being outnumbered, with scorched-earth tactics, a daring night raid, and psychological warfare in the form of a forest of captured and impaled Turks. Defeating Mehmet was no small feat—he’s the man who took Constantinople, among other conquests. But Dracula’s army was nearly as exhausted as the army he defeated. When Mehmet withdrew, he left Dracula’s brother, Radu the Handsome, behind, and Dracula’s Wallachian enemies were quick to flock to Radu. Dracula lost the throne. For a while, anyway. Eventually the Hungarians got tired of Radu’s loyalty to the Ottomans and Dracula started looking like a decent replacement. He came to the throne again, briefly, before being assassinated.
After the story of Dracula, the author continues with the history of the Balkans, but with less detail, and I found that part of the book less interesting.
I’d give some chapters in this book 3 stars, and some 5 stars, so I guess I’ll go with a 4 star overall rating.
The book’s subtitle is Vlad the Impaler and his rivals, and there’s as much about Hunyadi and Skanderbeg in this book as there is about Dracula. I didn’t come away with much knowledge about Vlad Dracula’s personal life and personality (other than the whole ruthless thing). The book shows him as a petty tyrant, a harsh, violent man in a world full of harsh, violent men. He was gifted in war, but ultimately unsuccessful at peace.
To be fair, Wallachia was in a tight spot in the fifteenth century, squeezed between powerful foes like Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Anyone who wanted to stay on the throne needed the alliance of one or the other, and the question of which power had the upper hand was in frequent flux.
Dracula had several reigns on the Wallachian throne (he was from Wallachia, not Transylvania). During one reign, he slaughtered the boyars who opposed him (or who might have been thinking of opposing him) and persecuted the merchants in various economically influential towns. Then he switched alliance from the Ottomans to the Hungarians, and Mehmet II came to punish him. Dracula drove the sultan from Wallachia, despite being outnumbered, with scorched-earth tactics, a daring night raid, and psychological warfare in the form of a forest of captured and impaled Turks. Defeating Mehmet was no small feat—he’s the man who took Constantinople, among other conquests. But Dracula’s army was nearly as exhausted as the army he defeated. When Mehmet withdrew, he left Dracula’s brother, Radu the Handsome, behind, and Dracula’s Wallachian enemies were quick to flock to Radu. Dracula lost the throne. For a while, anyway. Eventually the Hungarians got tired of Radu’s loyalty to the Ottomans and Dracula started looking like a decent replacement. He came to the throne again, briefly, before being assassinated.
After the story of Dracula, the author continues with the history of the Balkans, but with less detail, and I found that part of the book less interesting.
I’d give some chapters in this book 3 stars, and some 5 stars, so I guess I’ll go with a 4 star overall rating.
December 6, 2016
Finally a book that focuses on Dracula's military career that does not elude to him being a vampire, which he never really was. The book is military history, it talks about the political intrigues with the Ottoman Empire, the Baltic states and Walachia itself. It also tells about Dracula's life and how political events shaped it.
Contrary to popular opinion the Turks or the Ottomans engaged in conquest not to enlarge the borders for the Islamic world, called Ghazi, but rather their expansion and movement westward was driven by tensions further east. Moreover loyalties were not based strictly on religious ground but rather they were based on personal interest. Turks or Christians could be loyal to just about anyone if it merited their survival and personal interest. This was true of Turkish tribes and Baltic princedoms.
In these fiefdoms like Transylvania and Walachia things were rather tense. The were small and almost powerless. They would Allie with the strongest party in order to keep their throne and kingdom. Inner politics were tricky as well. In Walachia there was the Voivod or king but there were also Boyars and Daxon merchants who wielded enough power to unseat a voivode. This could lead to civil war, which it often did and to outside powers leaning into their business .
Dracula's grandfather was the first Voivode and after him came Vlad Dracul II, Dracula's father. Dracula's father was sworn into the king of Hungry's Order of the Dragon. Designed to defend Catholicism from the Turks. Vlad was Eastern Orthodox and sometimes he switched sides and helped the Turks. This would put him at odds with the likes of Jonas Hunyadi form Hangary. At times Vlad would switch and fight for the Christians. All the while Dracula and his brother Radu were hostages to the Sultan. When Dracula's father died, Dracula would be released to assume the throne.
Dracula would have three reigns. At times he was deposed and had to flee for his life. Once he was imprisoned in Hungary at times he was o. The run from rival kings. During his tenure Dracula would deal with internal threats quite harshly and deal the Turks devastating blows. Dracula is remembered as a monster by some and a hero by others. Read the book and make a decision .
Contrary to popular opinion the Turks or the Ottomans engaged in conquest not to enlarge the borders for the Islamic world, called Ghazi, but rather their expansion and movement westward was driven by tensions further east. Moreover loyalties were not based strictly on religious ground but rather they were based on personal interest. Turks or Christians could be loyal to just about anyone if it merited their survival and personal interest. This was true of Turkish tribes and Baltic princedoms.
In these fiefdoms like Transylvania and Walachia things were rather tense. The were small and almost powerless. They would Allie with the strongest party in order to keep their throne and kingdom. Inner politics were tricky as well. In Walachia there was the Voivod or king but there were also Boyars and Daxon merchants who wielded enough power to unseat a voivode. This could lead to civil war, which it often did and to outside powers leaning into their business .
Dracula's grandfather was the first Voivode and after him came Vlad Dracul II, Dracula's father. Dracula's father was sworn into the king of Hungry's Order of the Dragon. Designed to defend Catholicism from the Turks. Vlad was Eastern Orthodox and sometimes he switched sides and helped the Turks. This would put him at odds with the likes of Jonas Hunyadi form Hangary. At times Vlad would switch and fight for the Christians. All the while Dracula and his brother Radu were hostages to the Sultan. When Dracula's father died, Dracula would be released to assume the throne.
Dracula would have three reigns. At times he was deposed and had to flee for his life. Once he was imprisoned in Hungary at times he was o. The run from rival kings. During his tenure Dracula would deal with internal threats quite harshly and deal the Turks devastating blows. Dracula is remembered as a monster by some and a hero by others. Read the book and make a decision .
September 2, 2016
Waterson looks at the life and times of Vlad the Impaler; known worldwide as Dracula thanks to Bram Stoker's 19th century novel. It was interesting but I struggled a little at times as the writing was quite academic and a little dry in parts. Fascinating period in history though.
March 25, 2025
Very informative of the background of Wallachia before and After Vlad the Impaler and the Ottoman Empire
February 4, 2026
Was a really interesting book though was not nessesarilly mostly about Vlad spefically however the content was really interesting.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews