Some novels are epic and delve deep into the lives of historical figures over many years, while others, though short, still manage to surprise the reader with key historical events and powerful character tension. I have been a fan of Lisa J Yarde for many years. Crescent and Cross was one my favorite of her novels. It is truly an important book, one that must be read, discussed, and whose characters will leave a mark for decades to come. As a historical novelist I was once again blown away by Lisa J Yarde's depth of research and fine prose. This was another pleasurable read.
Crescent and Cross follows the life of Prince Radu of Wallachia, son of Vlad II Dracul. It begins in the year 1444 when as an eight year-old boy, he is taken hostage by Murad II, the Ottoman ruler, together with his older brother Prince Vlad, the teenager who will in later years become known as Vlad the Impaler and in literature, serve as the 19th century inspiration for the mythical vampire, Dracula.
This is a novel of abduction, abuse, betrayal, revenge, loss and in a sense its main character, Radu, comes to embody a loneliness that haunts the reader long after the last page. This novel moved me, invited much introspection, and I hope that others will read it because it asks questions that are truly pertinent today.
At its core it is a story of two extremes. Two Wallachian princes, whose father had long battled with the Ottomans, suffer captivity and alienation in Ottoman lands.
One of them, Vlad, is rebellious, often beaten by his captors; he shamelessly exhibits his dragon pendant - a gift from his father who was made knight of the Order of the Dragon in 1431 - and proves to be unbreakable, spending his years in captivity to formulate a revengeful plan that will make history.
The other, Radu, is peace-seeking and kind, he seeks to understand, to compromise, he converts to Islam and while he wears his own dragon pendant, he is too fearful about it being seen so conceals it beneath his clothing. He is able to bend. He remains ever open and learns from his Ottoman captors. But his lack of courage means that when his own self-integrity is on the line, he will go too far in bending.
.GIF)
Ultimately Radu pays the highest psychological price. Radu is what Stockholm Syndrome does to an abductee who internalises his abductor's values over many years. But ultimately Radu accommodates too much. At the end of his life he is beset by regrets. There is first his feeling of failure for not having had the courage to mortally stab his sexual abuser, Mehmed, son of Murad II. Further to this, the knowledge that he has become an Ottoman commander who now leads an army against his own brother Vlad, creates further fracture between Radu's deeply held beliefs and his actions.
At the end of his life, all Radu's thoughts arise from the guilt he feels for not having had the courage that Vlad showed, and worse, the shame he feels for having failed the brother he once looked up to. Radu's inner tension and loneliness were wonderfully drawn. They added a nuanced emotional depth to the novel that was heartbreaking and unforgettable.
The many years of captivity, away from their father and their family, can also be taken as an extreme event, one that played a tremendous part in shaping the two princes' lives. From having read the other Order of the Dragon books, it was clear to me that Vlad was attracted to violence, but Crescent and Cross raises the question as to whether Vlad's ultimate nature might not have been forged by his imprisonment.
After all, it was through the Ottomans that Vlad was exposed to warfare impaling, a form of terror that he was to use in later years.
Perhaps a key turning point in Vlad's trajectory is when he learns of his father's and brother Mircea's cruel deaths at the hands of the Saxon elite. He comes to learn of the details while in captivity and this only fuels his rage and determination at enacting vengeance against his family's murderers. Once powerless, his hands tied for years, his newly found freedom unleashes powerful urges.
Vlad then is what an abductee does when pushed too far. One can even argue that Vlad has been forced to place limits. He certainly had a sadistic streak to begin with, but the novel crafts such an interesting arc that it does make one wonder...
And the question is...
Can one really blame Vlad the Impaler for the singleminded violence he showed in his 1462 terror campaign ?
Figuratively speaking, Vlad's impalement tactic could be interpreted as a revenge for Mehmed's abduction of his little brother over many years. There is that. But militarily, it brings on a terror tour de force. The gruesome sight of the 15000 to 20000 impaled bodies outside the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște did successfully deter Mehmed from pursuing his Wallachian campaign.
According to latest historical research it is questionable whether the body count in the Forest of the Impaled amounted to 20000 Ottoman prisoners. Research seems to suggest that impalement accounts were usually inflated. Revised estimates in Vlad's case, indicate that the number can be reduced to 1600 or 1700. But the question remains, what brings a man to that level of violence ?
Was he a monster?
I really think that one would need to experience the same historical period as Vlad to answer such a question. During this multiple century period, Ottoman invaders were unrelenting throughout Europe and beyond, causing endless bloodshed and loss. It was not a time to turn the other cheek. One had to erect boundaries. What boundary is enough when the enemy exerts such cruelty ? Perhaps Vlad became persuaded that in order to confront the Ottomans, he had to exhibit as much cruelty as they had.
I love this book so much because it never answers any questions but it leaves the reader to make up their own mind.
From the onset of the novel, little Radu is seen as psychologically weaker than his older brother, Vlad who countless times warns him not to become influenced or fooled by the manipulations of the young Mehmed II.
A word about Mehmed - because his smooth character is so well drawn, that as a reader I even came to discount Vlad's repeated warnings to his brother. I thought Vlad was showing too much suspicion and being overly protective.
But Vlad sees only the truth. That became evident.
.JPG)
At first, we see in Mehmed only his fine-mannered acts and cultured breeding. But this façade belies the true preoccupation of this future Ottoman ruler, who for years as a teenager wanted to prove himself by conquering the city the Ottomans had, to date, failed to take : Constantinople.
The way I personally read Mehmed is as a strategic magician. On the surface, smooth-talking, cool, detached, relatively avoidant of violence - that is, if one were to compare him to Vlad - enjoying fancy baths and forbidden pleasures, but beneath it all - waves magic wand. Beneath it all, he was abducting young boys. Beneath it all, he was building massive cannons aimed at those famous 12 meter-high Theodosian walls. He had spies and he knew exactly what he wanted.
"Give me Constantinople", he once said.
And conquer Constantinople he did. This is then the magic. The taking of the Christian city was itself a form of violence but it was sheathed in grandeur, in the erecting of new edifices, in the beautifying of a city, and soon it became unquestioned.
.JPG)
