Indeed, yes, that was a "massacre", against the rules of war.  However...
 -- Colonel Charles Lynch of the Virginia militia gave his name to "Lynch Law".  That is to say, "give him a fair trial, then take him out and hang him."
-- Thomas Sumter, who gave his name to the now-famous Fort Sumter, hanged so many people, (Loyalists, British soldiers, and even his own men who weren't so crazy as he) that the people hanging from trees became known as "Sumter's Fruit."
 He is also called "Tarleton's Spiritual Twin" by historian Hugh Bicheno, author of "Rebels & Redcoats."  Both were psychopaths, both murdered people unnecessarily.  As you can see, you could try and show both sides of the story.
 Also:
 Mel Gibson was going to base his film, "The Patriot", on the revolutionary "hero" Francis "the Swamp Fox" Marion.  However, it turned out that Marion was a poison-dwarf, who killed without reason, was a racist to the extremes only capable of someone who has been brought up thinking black men are dogs, and who was very short, ugly, and had deformed legs.  (He was, however, a very effective leader, and this is no doubt where Mel got his idea from; his own insecurity over his image was no doubt the cause of his extremity of violence.)  This is what Bicheno has to say of them:
 "Sumter 'the Gamecock' and Marion 'the Swamp Fox' both owned modest plantations near Eutaw Springs on the lower Santee, which were laid waste during 1780 as a result (not, as in myth and film, the cause) of their continued resistance.  They were mirror images of Tarleton and James Wemyss.... they tortured prisoners, hanged fence-sitters, abused parole and flags of truce and they shot their own men when they failed to live up to the harsh standards they set."
 Marion made his name first by wiping out a column of Redcoats escorting 147 Continentals to Charleston.  This is the basis of the incident in the film where Mel uses a tomahawk, traded for with the Cherokee or somesuch, to kill the men kidnapping his son.  As we can see, the film is a little inaccurate in its portrayal of the war.  The number of books published on the American war of Independence in Britain after "The Patriot" was released is high - academics and historians hated the film with reason, and wanted to set the record straight.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,,332358,00.html ;   Look here for some info.

cathlic zealot that killed turks in the most gruesome way imaginable(even by my standerds) he's an ok fello

i dunno dracula had nicer ways of killing his victems impalement is not a laughing matter  you could survive for as long as 3 days with one of those pole's sticking trough your body... 

He liked people impaled before and during breakfast as he ate.  Weird bloke.  But he was Christian Europe's main hope in the east in the early 16th century, so yes, he was both a European patriot and a Hungarian one (Transylvania was only ceded to Romania after the First World War.)

I wasn't saying that Jesus Christ advocated such behaviour.  I was simply stating that to so-called Christian Europe at the time, he was the only hope of providing effective resistance against the Ottoman Turks.  Do you believe that there has ever existed a state that actually practised its stated form of religion or governmental practise?  Do you think that China from the Han dynasty onwards was truly Confucian, or that Israel truly follows Jewish law, or that the "Christian" states of Europe lived as the Bible states? No.  And in the same way, individuals act/think contrary to their stated beliefs.  For instance, in 2 Corinthians 7:1, the Bible states; "take care of your body and shun bad habits", but don't tell me you've never seen a Christian who smoked, or was fat, or a myriad of other things.  Or in the Dao de Jing, Lao Zi, and in the Zhuang Zi, Zhuang Zi, state that ritual should be left alone, and it is often absolutely zero importance (if anything is of importance.)  But see the Taoist clergy, wearing their robes, lighting incense, chanting, saying prayers - ritual!

You're welcome.  However, Vlad the Impaler was indeed a patriot.

Hitler and... Lenin?  Pardon?  Lenin was hardly in the same league as Hitler.  The Russian Revolution may have been a terrible thing, but it was never truly under the control of anyone, even Lenin, and he cannot be held responsible for Stalin and the Purges.
  But yes, I see. I disagree with your overall point, though.  People like Vlad the Impaler and Hitler can be explained by biology and psychology - they were/are not intrinsically "bad."  Therefore, there is no requirement for a "redeemer", for there is nothing to redeem.