The Aristocracy of Blood: A Deep Dive into Pre-Modern Serial Homicide

Introduction: The Anachronism of Evil

The history of crime is often mistook for a history of modern pathology. Contemporary society views the phenomenon of serial homicide—defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the killing of three or more victims in separate events with a cooling-off period—as a distinctly modern aberration, born of industrialization, anonymity, and the fracturing of the nuclear family. However, the architectural blueprint of the serial killer, characterized by predatory compulsion, sexual sadism, and the systematic selection of vulnerable victims, is as old as civilization itself. The primary difference lies not in the psychology of the offender, but in the vocabulary of the observer and the capacity of the state to intervene.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the historical, legal, and sociological frameworks surrounding serial homicide prior to the 20th century. It interrogates the retroactive application of modern criminological terminology to historical figures who, in their own times, were viewed through the lenses of demonology, tyranny, or lycanthropy. By examining the reigns and crimes of the Roman Emperor Caligula, the French Marshal Gilles de Rais, the Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory, and the German farmer Peter Stumpp, we reveal a terrifying continuity in human depravity.

Furthermore, this analysis explores the critical role of impunity. Unlike the modern serial killer, who typically operates as a fugitive on the fringes of society, the historical “monster” often operated from the very center of power. The concepts of Haute Justice (High Justice), divine right, and feudal absolutism provided the necessary environmental protection for these offenders to operate on scales vastly exceeding modern equivalents like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Finally, we trace the transition of these figures from historical reality into the realm of folklore, examining how the collective trauma of their crimes necessitated the creation of myths—vampires, werewolves, and Bluebeard—to explain atrocities that were otherwise incomprehensible to the pre-modern psyche.

Part I: The Semantics of Slaughter

1.1 The Etymology of the “Serial Killer” and the 1970s Paradigm Shift

To understand the historical figures discussed in this report, one must first deconstruct the lens through which they are currently viewed: the label of “serial killer.” While the behavior is ancient, the terminology is a distinct product of 20th-century bureaucracy and psychological classification. The crystallization of this term represents a pivotal moment in the shift from religious to secular interpretations of extreme violence.

The term “serial killer” is widely credited to Robert Ressler, a former FBI Special Agent and a founding member of the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU).¹ During the 1970s, a decade marked by a perceived “epidemic” of random violence and the highly publicized “Son of Sam” killings in New York City, Ressler and his colleagues were tasked with building a database for criminal profiling.³ While conducting prison interviews with incarcerated murderers, Ressler noted that the prevailing terminology of the time—such as “stranger killer,” “recreational killer,” or “motiveless homicide”—failed to capture the episodic and repetitive nature of the violence.

Ressler drew inspiration from the film industry’s concept of “serial adventures”—episodic narratives that left the audience in suspense, waiting for the next installment. He applied this narrative structure to the criminal profile: the offender was not merely killing at random, but was enacting a serialized fantasy, with each murder serving as an “episode” that temporarily satisfied a compulsion before the tension built again, necessitating a sequel.¹

However, the intellectual lineage of the term predates Ressler and the BSU. In 1930, the German criminologist Ernst Gennat coined the term Serienmörder (serial murderer) to describe Peter Kürten, known as the “Vampire of Düsseldorf”.¹ Gennat’s terminology was revolutionary because it moved the discourse away from the supernatural (the “Vampire”) toward the clinical. Yet, it was the American context of the 1970s and 1980s—fueled by the media sensationalism surrounding figures like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy—that solidified “serial killer” in the global cultural lexicon.³

The qualifications for this label have been debated and refined over decades. Traditionally, the FBI defined it as the killing of three or more people over a period of more than a month, with a “cooling-off” period between murders.³ This cooling-off period is the crucial differentiator between a serial killer and a mass murderer (who kills many targets in a single event) or a spree killer (who kills across multiple locations without a break).

The central psychological component identified by modern profiling is often sexual sadism, or erotophonophilia, where sexual gratification is derived from the act of killing, torture, or mutilation.⁵ This definition creates a significant historiographical challenge when applied backward in time. When we analyze a figure like Gilles de Rais or Caligula, we are applying a psycho-criminological framework to societies that viewed such behavior not as a mental pathology, but as a manifestation of “evil,” “sin,” or demonic possession.⁴

1.2 The Retroactive Diagnosis: Monsters vs. Psychopaths

The application of the “serial killer” label to pre-modern figures is an act of retroactive diagnosis that requires careful calibration. In the 15th century, during the lifetime of Gilles de Rais, there was no secular terminology for a man who hunted children for sport. The public understanding of such depravity was entirely contingent on religious beliefs, specifically Catholic interpretations of sin and the supernatural.⁴

Historical records indicate that the “monster” was the primary archetype used to explain these deviants. The 15th-century mind did not look for a “disorganized offender” with a “troubled childhood”; it looked for the bete d’extermination (devouring beast) or the loup-garou (werewolf).⁴ This theological framework served a dual purpose: it explained the inhuman nature of the crimes and provided a method of disposal (execution for heresy or witchcraft) that cleansed the community spiritually.

Criminologists like Sasha Reid argue that reducing these historical figures to “evil” or “monsters” limits our understanding of the developmental pathology involved.⁶ Modern research into the life course trajectories of serial killers cites factors such as early family environment, head trauma, and psychopathy. When we examine historical records, we often find evidence of these factors—Caligula’s traumatic upbringing in a military camp and the suspected poisoning of his family, or Gilles de Rais’s unsupervised youth and exposure to the brutality of the Hundred Years’ War.

The debate, therefore, is not whether these historical figures were serial killers—by the behavioral definition of repetitive, cooled-off murder, they certainly were—but how the absence of the term allowed them to operate. Without a profile, there was no pattern recognition. Without the concept of a “human predator,” the blame was shifted to wolves, demons, or the wrath of God, delaying the identification of the human perpetrator.⁴

Furthermore, the lack of a criminological framework meant that there was no “investigation” in the modern sense. There was no “linkage analysis” to connect a body found in one jurisdiction with a body found in another. The serial killer of the past relied on this fragmentation of information. As long as they did not openly declare war on the state, they could exploit the gaps in the feudal and imperial legal systems. The “monster” was a useful explanation because it suggested an aberration of nature rather than a failure of the social order. To acknowledge that a high-ranking noble or an emperor was preying on the population was to question the legitimacy of the hierarchy itself.⁸

Part II: Imperial Sadism – The Reign of Caligula

2.1 The State as the Killer

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, known to history as Caligula, presents a unique variation of the serial killer profile: the offender who possesses absolute state power. Unlike modern serial killers who must operate in the shadows to avoid detection, Caligula operated from the throne of the Roman Empire. His “reign” (37–41 AD) serves as a case study in what happens when the impulse for sadistic violence is coupled with total legal impunity and the resources of a superpower.⁸

Most serial killers are “power-assertive” types; they kill to exert control over a victim because they lack control in their daily lives. Caligula represents the inverse: a man with total control who killed to test the limits of that control. His violence was not compensatory but foundational to his governance.

Suetonius, in his The Lives of the Caesars, provides the primary, albeit sensationalized, account of Caligula’s atrocities. While modern historians often debate the veracity of Suetonius—viewing him as a gossip columnist of the ancient world who sought to discredit the Julio-Claudian dynasty—the consistency of the allegations regarding Caligula’s sadism suggests a core of truth. Suetonius describes a man who did not merely kill for political expediency, but for the visceral pleasure of suffering.⁹

2.2 The Psychology of the “Chewing”: Sadism and Infamy

A defining characteristic of the sexual sadist is the need for tactile, intimate contact with the violence. Suetonius chronicles an incident that elevates Caligula from a tyrannical ruler to a pathological offender. The text describes Caligula’s behavior as driven by dedecorum infamia (disgraceful infamy) and unbridled libido.¹¹

The specific allegations include the chewing of victims’ testicles—a detail that suggests a level of feral brutality incongruent with mere political execution. This act, whether literal or symbolic of his total domination over the bodies of his subjects, aligns with the profiles of disorganized, lust-driven serial killers who engage in anthropophagy (cannibalism) or mutilation.⁸ In the modern typology of serial killers, this behavior would classify Caligula as a “hedonistic” killer, one who kills for the sheer pleasure of the act, often mixing sexual gratification with torture.⁵

This specific form of mutilation serves a dual purpose in the sadist’s psyche:

1. Humiliation: It reduces the victim to meat, stripping them of all human dignity and status. For a Roman male, castration or genital mutilation was the ultimate erasure of identity.
2. Incorporation: By consuming or chewing parts of the victim, the killer symbolically absorbs their life force or dominance. This aligns with the cannibalistic urges seen in modern offenders like Jeffrey Dahmer or Albert Fish.

Furthermore, Suetonius notes Caligula’s incestuous relationships, particularly with his sister Drusilla, and his habit of prostituting his sisters to other men. He was accused of exchanging sexual favors with Marcus Lepidus, the actor Mnester, and various foreign hostages.¹² This shattering of social taboos is consistent with the profile of an offender who views others solely as objects for gratification, lacking any capacity for empathy or social norm adherence. The incest, in particular, suggests a narcissistic withdrawal where only those sharing his own “divine” blood were worthy of intimacy, yet even they were ultimately disposable objects of his will.

2.3 The Absence of Law Enforcement: The Emperor’s Immunity

In the context of 1st-century Rome, there was no “police force” capable of investigating the Emperor. The Roman legal concept of imperium gave the Emperor absolute authority over the military and the judiciary. He was the fons justitiae, the fountain of justice. A crime was defined as an act against the state or the social order; therefore, by definition, the Emperor could not commit a crime in the legal sense.

The Praetorian Guard, ostensibly the protectors of the Emperor, were the only force capable of stopping him. However, their role was to protect his person, not to police his morality. This created a bubble of total impunity. Caligula could turn a dinner party into a torture session without fear of legal repercussion. This mirrors the “organized” serial killer who controls the environment to prevent interruption, but on a macro scale. The “crime scene” was the entire city of Rome.

His reign demonstrates that when the killer is the law, the serial predation continues until the social order collapses or the killer is violently removed.⁸ Caligula’s eventual assassination by the Praetorian Guard was not an act of “law enforcement” in the modern sense, but a political purge necessary to save the state from the chaotic whims of a serial predator. It was the only “cooling-off period” available to the Roman Empire: the permanent removal of the offender.

Part III: The Marshal of Hell – Gilles de Rais

3.1 The Hero and the Monster: A Study in Dissonance

Gilles de Rais (1405–1440) stands as perhaps the most jarring example of the dichotomy between public heroism and private depravity in European history. A Marshal of France, a companion-in-arms to Joan of Arc, and a hero of the Hundred Years’ War, Rais was a figure of immense national stature.¹³ Yet, beneath this veneer of chivalry and piety, he was allegedly orchestrating one of the most prolific series of child murders in recorded history.

Born into the House of Laval and inheriting the Craon fortune, Rais was one of the wealthiest men in France. His military career peaked early; he fought alongside Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orléans in 1429. He was the “Golden Boy” of the French nobility, granted the right to add the royal fleur-de-lys to his coat of arms.¹⁵ However, following Joan’s capture and execution, and his own retirement from the military in the 1430s, Rais’s life spiraled.

Modern psychologists might view this through the lens of PTSD and decompartmentalization. The extreme violence of the Hundred Years’ War—where scorched earth tactics and massacres were common—may have desensitized Rais to bloodshed. Once the legitimate outlet for this violence (war) was removed, and the stabilizing influence of Joan of Arc was gone, Rais’s pathology, unchecked by military discipline, turned inward against his own subjects.¹⁶

3.2 The Crimes: The Slaughter at Machecoul and Tiffauges

The specific nature of Rais’s crimes, as detailed in the ecclesiastical and civil trials of 1440, is harrowing. Operating primarily out of his castles at Machecoul, Champtocé, and Tiffauges, Rais and a circle of accomplices (including his cousin Gilles de Sillé and servants like Poitou and Henriet) abducted children from the surrounding countryside. These victims were often beggars or children of peasants who had come to the castle gates seeking alms, known as “The Holy Innocents” in a perverse twist of religious irony.¹⁷

The trial records, which include Rais’s own confession (albeit obtained under threat of torture), describe a ritualized pattern of abuse. Rais admitted to sodomizing the children before killing them, often by decapitation or dismemberment. The testimony details extreme necrophilic tendencies; Rais would embrace the dying or dead victims, delighting in the sight of their internal organs and the beauty of their severed heads.¹⁸

Estimates of the victim count vary wildly, from 80 to over 600, though the ecclesiastical court convicted him on the basis of roughly 140 victims.¹³ This scale of violence places Rais in the upper echelon of historical serial killers. His behavior exhibits the “escalation” phase common in modern profiling: beginning with tentative experiments in the occult and gradually moving toward human sacrifice and sexual torture as his desensitization to violence increased.¹⁷

The disposal methods were equally methodical. Bodies were burned in fireplaces, thrown into castle moats, or buried in cellars. This “organized” disposal indicates a clear awareness of the criminality of his acts and a desire to avoid detection, contradicting the idea that he was merely a “madman” acting on impulse. He was a predator who managed a “kill factory” within his own estates.¹⁷

3.3 The Role of the Occult: The Barron Invocation and Transactional Magic

A critical differentiator between Rais and a modern secular serial killer is the motivation of “transactional magic.” Rais did not merely kill for sexual gratification; he killed to summon a demon named Barron.

Bankrupted by his extravagant lifestyle—including the funding of a theatrical spectacle, Le Mistère du Siège d’Orléans, which cost a fortune in costumes and food—Rais turned to alchemy to restore his wealth.¹⁵ In the 15th century, the boundary between science (alchemy) and magic (demonology) was porous. Rais employed a Florentine priest and mystic, François Prelati, who convinced Rais that the demon Barron could grant him knowledge and riches.

The summoning rituals, performed in the lower halls of Tiffauges, involved the drawing of magic circles and the offering of “parts of a child” in a glass vessel.¹⁵ The failure of the demon to manifest or provide the gold only fueled Rais’s desperation and violence. Prelati acted as an enabler, feeding Rais’s delusions and demanding more sacrifices. This dynamic mirrors the relationship between modern killer pairs (folie à deux), where a dominant personality (or in this case, a spiritual advisor) manipulates the primary offender’s psychopathology.¹⁵

Rais’s confession details these rituals:

“Item, the said accused stated and confessed that he was told on his return that at one invocation of the said Francois’ in his absence, Francois had seen the demon named Barron and spoken with him… the demon Barron was angry and required the offering of parts of a child.” ¹⁸

This transactional view of murder—a child’s heart for a chest of gold—highlights the commodification of human life inherent in Rais’s worldview. The children were not just objects of sexual lust; they were currency in a spiritual economy.

3.4 The Trial: Justice or Political Assassination?

While the descriptions of the crimes are graphic, modern historians have debated the validity of the trial. Rais was a powerful noble whose lands were coveted by the Duke of Brittany, John V, and his chancellor, Jean de Malestroit (the Bishop of Nantes who presided over the ecclesiastical trial).¹⁴

The trial was swift. Rais was arrested in September 1440 and executed by October 26, 1440. He was charged with heresy, sodomy, and murder. The speed of the conviction, combined with the fact that the Duke of Brittany stood to gain Rais’s remaining estates, has led some to argue that Rais was the victim of a political frame-up, similar to the suppression of the Knights Templar.²⁰ In 1992, a panel of historians and legal experts even conducted a “retrial” of Gilles de Rais in the French Senate, resulting in a symbolic acquittal due to the lack of physical evidence (no bodies were exhumed during the 1992 review) and the reliance on torture-induced confessions.²⁰

However, the sheer volume of testimony—not just from his servants, who were tortured, but from the parents of missing children—weighs heavily against total innocence. The “disappearance” of over 100 children from the vicinity of a single lord’s estates is a statistical anomaly that requires explanation. Furthermore, Rais’s confession, while coerced, contained details of the “pleasure” of the killings that align closely with modern understandings of sexual sadism—details that 15th-century clerics would be unlikely to invent with such psychological precision. The most likely reality is a convergence of interests: Rais was a monster, and his political enemies used his monstrosity as a convenient tool to strip him of his wealth.¹⁷

Part IV: The Blood Countess – Elizabeth Báthory

4.1 The Gynaecium of Horror: Institutionalized Sadism

Elizabeth Báthory (1560–1614) holds the Guinness World Record as the most prolific female murderer, though this title is wrapped in layers of myth and political intrigue. Born into one of the oldest and wealthiest families in Hungary, she was the niece of Stephen Báthory, King of Poland.²²

Following the death of her husband, Ferenc Nádasdy, in 1604, Elizabeth assumed control of the vast Nádasdy estates. It was during this period of widowhood that her crimes allegedly escalated. Testimony collected by the Palatine György Thurzó in 1610 suggests that Báthory utilized her position to lure young girls into her service under the guise of training them in courtly etiquette within her gynaecium (women’s quarters).²³

The gynaecium served as a perfect cover. In early modern Hungary, it was customary for peasant and lower-noble families to send their daughters to serve in the households of high aristocrats to learn manners and domestic skills. This social contract turned Báthory’s castle into a trap. Once inside the walls of Csejte (Čachtice) or Sárvár, the girls were isolated from their families and subject to the absolute authority of the Countess.

The accusations against Báthory describe a litany of torture methods that rival the Spanish Inquisition:

• Needles: Jamming needles under fingernails or into lips.
• Honey and Ants: Covering victims in honey and leaving them bound near anthills.
• Thermal Torture: Dousing victims in water and leaving them to freeze to death in the winter snow.
• Burning: Using hot irons, coins, or keys to brand the skin.²²

The victims were initially servants—peasant girls whose deaths could be easily covered up. However, as her impunity grew, she allegedly began targeting the daughters of the lesser nobility. This transition marks a critical psychological shift often seen in serial offenders: the escalation of risk. The “high” of killing a peasant, who was considered property, eventually faded, necessitating the hunting of “higher value” prey. It was this violation of the class structure—the murder of the noble born—that ultimately forced the King to intervene.²³

4.2 Deconstructing the “Blood Bath” Myth

The most enduring image of Elizabeth Báthory is that of the “Blood Countess” bathing in the blood of virgins to retain her youth. Research indicates that this specific detail is a fabrication added to her legend more than a century after her death.

The concept of the blood bath does not appear in the original trial transcripts or witness depositions from 1610. It was first recorded in 1729 by the Jesuit scholar László Túróczi in his Tragica Historia. Túróczi’s account was later embellished by other writers, cementing the vampire-like image in the cultural consciousness.²²

The reality, while bloodless in the literal “bathing” sense, was no less gruesome. The trial depositions mention blood only in the context of torture—severe beatings that left walls splattered or clothing soaked. The myth of the bath likely served to “vampirize” her image, transforming a cruel sadist into a supernatural monster. This transformation made the story more palatable as folklore while stripping away the uncomfortable reality of unchecked aristocratic abuse. It is easier to fear a supernatural witch than to accept that a well-educated, high-ranking noblewoman enjoyed torturing girls to death.²⁴

4.3 The Conspiracy of Debt and the Missing Trial

Like Gilles de Rais, Báthory’s guilt is complicated by political factors. At the time of her arrest, the Habsburg King Matthias II owed a substantial financial debt to the Báthory family. By arresting Elizabeth and imprisoning her, the Crown effectively cancelled this debt and allowed the Nádasdy lands to be seized or managed by court-appointed guardians (including her sons-in-law, who also stood to gain).²²

Báthory was never given a formal trial. While her accomplices (servants Ilona Jó, Dorottya Szentes, and János Újváry) were tortured and executed, Elizabeth was simply walled up inside a room in Csejte Castle, where she remained until her death in 1614.²⁵ The lack of a trial suggests that the Palatine Thurzó wanted to avoid a public scandal that could implicate other nobles or reveal the extent of the Crown’s debt.

Testimony from the servant Ilona Jó stated that “all officials and servants knew of the atrocities.” This implies a widespread network of complicity among the local nobility, who either supplied victims or turned a blind eye. A public trial might have exposed this network, destabilizing the region. It was a containment operation: neutralize the woman, seize the assets, and bury the truth.⁸

Despite the political convenience of her arrest, the recovery of dozens of bodies and the testimony of over 300 witnesses indicates that a series of mass murders did occur. The conspiracy likely lies not in the fabrication of the crimes, but in the timing of the prosecution. She was allowed to kill for years; she was only stopped when she became a financial liability to the Crown.²²

Part V: The Rural Monster – Peter Stumpp

5.1 The Peasant Monster: Lycanthropy as Class Indicator

While Rais and Báthory represent the crimes of the high aristocracy, Peter Stumpp (or Stumpf) represents the “rural monster.” Executed in 1589 in Bedburg, Germany, Stumpp was a wealthy farmer accused of being a werewolf who had terrorized the Rhineland for 25 years.³⁰

Stumpp’s case serves as a crucial counterpoint to the aristocratic killers. While Rais and Báthory were protected by their titles, Stumpp was exposed to the full, raw brutality of 16th-century justice. His case is one of the most famous werewolf trials in history. He was accused of killing and eating 14 children (including his own son), two pregnant women, and engaging in incest with his daughter. Under torture, Stumpp confessed that the Devil had given him a “magical belt” that allowed him to transform into a wolf.³¹

5.2 Lycanthropy as Criminology: The “Beast” Within

The Stumpp case offers a profound insight into how pre-modern society processed the concept of the serial killer. In the 16th century, a human being acting with such feral savagery—cannibalism, ripping fetuses from wombs—was ontologically impossible to reconcile with the “human” condition. The perpetrator had to be a beast.

The “werewolf” was, in essence, a legal and psychological container for the serial killer. It provided a mechanism to explain the brutality (the wolf nature) and the elusive ability of the killer to blend into society (the human form). When Stumpp confessed to being a werewolf, he was confessing to being what we would now call a sexual sadist and cannibal.³¹

Modern analysis suggests Stumpp may have suffered from clinical lycanthropy, a rare psychiatric syndrome where the patient believes they are transforming into an animal. Alternatively, he was simply a sadist who used the wolf skin (or belt) as a dissociative tool—a mask that allowed him to separate his “human” self from his “predatory” self, much like modern killers who wear masks or adopt alter egos.³²

5.3 The Spectacle of Punishment and Religious War

Stumpp’s execution was designed to be as monstrous as his crimes. On October 31, 1589, he was strapped to a wheel. His flesh was torn from his body with red-hot pincers in ten places. His arms and legs were broken with the blunt side of an axe (the “breaking wheel”), and he was finally beheaded and burned. His daughter and mistress were flayed and burned alongside him.³¹

This ritualized destruction of the body served a specific purpose: it was an act of purification. By totally obliterating the physical form of the “monster,” the community hoped to erase the stain of his crimes. The severity of the punishment also reflects the terror of the community—they were not just killing a murderer; they were killing a supernatural threat.³⁴

Contextually, Stumpp’s trial occurred during the Cologne War (1583–1588), a brutal conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Some historians suggest Stumpp, likely a Protestant in a Catholic-reconquered region, may have been a scapegoat. The “werewolf” panic often coincided with periods of social instability, where “outsiders” or those of opposing faiths were demonized to enforce social cohesion. The narrative of the “wolf” prowling the fold was a powerful metaphor for the heretic infiltrating the faithful.³²

Part VI: The Architecture of Impunity

6.1 Haute Justice and the Right of the Sword

The crimes of Caligula, Rais, and Báthory were enabled by the legal structure of their times. In medieval France and early modern Hungary, the concept of Haute Justice (High Justice) or ius gladii (Right of the Sword) gave high-ranking nobles the legal authority to administer capital punishment within their domains.³⁵

Holders of High Justice could arrest, try, and execute subjects. While this power was theoretically bound by law and custom, in practice, it created zones of legal sovereignty where the lord was the judge, jury, and executioner. Gilles de Rais and Elizabeth Báthory effectively lived in private states where they held the power of life and death. If a peasant child went missing on Rais’s land, the only person with the authority to investigate was Rais himself.³⁶

This legal framework turns the “serial killer” dynamic on its head. Modern killers are hunted by the state. Historical aristocratic killers were the state (at a local level). Their castles were not just homes but fortified legal jurisdictions.

6.2 The Victim Demographics and the “Hue and Cry”

The choice of victims was the key to their longevity. Both Rais and Báthory preyed primarily on the lower classes—peasant children and servant girls. In feudal society, these individuals had little to no legal standing. Their disappearances could be ignored, explained away as runaways, or silenced through intimidation.⁸

The only mechanism for justice was the “Hue and Cry”—the communal alarm raised by villagers. However, against a Marshal of France or a Countess, the Hue and Cry was ineffectual. Peasants who complained were often beaten or imprisoned for slander. It was only when the victimization crossed class lines—when Báthory began killing noble daughters, or when Rais violated the Church’s immunity by kidnapping a cleric—that the machinery of justice was activated.²³

6.3 The Absence of Centralized Policing

Modern serial killers are hunted by centralized agencies (like the FBI or national police forces) that share data across jurisdictions. In the 15th and 17th centuries, no such infrastructure existed. Policing was local, often enforced by the very nobles committing the crimes.

There was no “Investigative Bureau” to notice a pattern of missing children across the Loire Valley. The fragmentation of feudal Europe meant that a killer could move between territories (or simply stay within their own massive estates) without anyone connecting the dots. The serial killer of the past relied on this fragmentation. As long as they did not openly declare war on the King, they could exploit the gaps in the system for decades.⁸

Part VII: From Reality to Myth – The Vampire, the Wolf, and Bluebeard

7.1 The Bluebeard Legacy: Charles Perrault’s Sanitization

The cultural memory of Gilles de Rais did not survive as a case study in criminology, but as a fairy tale. Charles Perrault’s 1697 story La Barbe bleue (Bluebeard) is widely believed to be inspired by Rais.¹³ In the tale, a wealthy lord murders his wives and hides their bodies in a locked room.

While Rais killed children, not wives, the core elements—the wealthy, powerful predator, the castle of secrets, and the eventual discovery of the charnel house—transferred into the folklore. This “folklorization” served a protective function: it took a terrifying reality (a child-eating Marshal of France) and transformed it into a cautionary tale. It sanitized the horror while preserving the warning. The “blue beard” became a marker of otherness, a warning sign that the aristocrat was not what he seemed.³⁹

7.2 The Vampire Mythos: Báthory and the Gothic Imagination

Elizabeth Báthory’s transformation into a “vampire” followed a similar trajectory. The 18th-century embellishments of blood bathing aligned her with the rising vampire hysteria in Eastern Europe. As the Enlightenment tried to rationalize the world, the “Gothic” counter-movement embraced these figures as symbols of aristocratic excess and supernatural evil.²²

Báthory became the archetype for the “female monster”—the woman who consumes life to preserve her own vanity. This myth overshadowed the reality of her sadism, turning a serial killer into a supernatural villain akin to Dracula (who was himself based on another autocrat, Vlad the Impaler). The myth serves to distance the viewer from the perpetrator; a vampire is a beast that can be hunted, whereas a cruel countess is a reflection of the corruptibility of human power structures.²⁵

7.3 The Werewolf as Explanatory Model

For Peter Stumpp, the werewolf legend was not a post-hoc addition but the contemporary explanation. The 16th-century worldview could not process “psychopathy” without a supernatural agent. The belt from the Devil was the “technology” that explained how a man could become a beast.³¹

In modern terms, the “werewolf” is a metaphor for the serial killer’s dual nature: the neighbor by day, the predator by night. Stumpp’s story became a staple of broadsheets and pamphlets, serving as a warning against making pacts with the devil, but also warning communities that the monster could be anyone—even a wealthy farmer.³²

Conclusion: The Persistence of the Monster

The history of the serial killer is not a history of a new phenomenon, but a history of new names for an ancient darkness. Whether wearing a toga, armor, a corset, or a wolfskin, the predator remains the same; only the mechanism of their impunity and the myths of their destruction change.

The application of the term “serial killer” to figures like Caligula, Gilles de Rais, Elizabeth Báthory, and Peter Stumpp is historically anachronistic but criminologically valid. These individuals exhibited the behavioral patterns of repetitive, compulsive violence that define the modern profile. They were driven by fantasies of control, sexual gratification, and domination.

However, their “careers” as killers were fundamentally shaped by the absence of modern law enforcement and the presence of absolute class privilege (or, in Stumpp’s case, the isolation of the rural landscape). They were not fugitives running from the law; they were the law. Their crimes were only checked when they threatened the political stability of the state or the financial interests of the Crown.

The transition of these figures into the myths of Bluebeard, vampires, and werewolves represents society’s attempt to process trauma. When the reality of human cruelty exceeds the capacity of the collective imagination, the monster is born. We tell stories of wolves and vampires because the truth—that a Marshal of France or a Countess could hunt children for sport—is too terrifying to confront without the buffer of fantasy. The monster is not just a killer; it is a cultural scar, marking the place where power turned into predation.

Works cited

1. accessed December 9, 2025, https://grokipedia.com/page/Robert_Ressler#:~:text=Robert%20Ressler%20is%20widely%20credited,of%20%22crimes%20in%20series%22%20from
2. Psychopathy and Gender of Serial Killers: A Comparison … – CORE, accessed December 9, 2025, https://core.ac.uk/download/214069043.pdf
3. Serial Killers: I. Subtypes, Patterns, and Motives – ResearchGate, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259158370_Serial_Killers_I_Subtypes_Patterns_and_Motives
4. Psychological & Societal Factors in Serial Killers, accessed December 9, 2025, https://research.ncwu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Allison-Wichrowski-2023-Criminal-Justice-and-Psychology.pdf
5. Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns, and motives – ResearchGate, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=56c7ddc35e9d9748f38b4567&assetKey=AS:331046362075137@1455939011060
6. Mapping the Life Course Trajectories of Serial Killers – SciSpace, accessed December 9, 2025, https://scispace.com/pdf/the-perfect-storm-mapping-the-life-course-trajectories-of-3zvixkqssg.pdf
7. Geographic Profiling: Contributions to the Investigation of Serial …, accessed December 9, 2025, https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3275&context=etd_all
8. SCAVENGERS OF HUMAN SORROW: THE LIVES … – ScholarWorks, accessed December 9, 2025, https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/00000262d
9. Caligula (Ruled from A.D. 37-41): Sex, Madness, Self-Deification …, accessed December 9, 2025, https://europe.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-349.html
10. Suetonius • Life of Caligula, accessed December 9, 2025, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html
11. Sex in Suetonius: Sexual Material as a Characterisation Device for …, accessed December 9, 2025, https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/134038/1/Bremert2021_MPhil.pdf
12. Suetonius (69–140) – The Twelve Caesars: Book IV, Gaius Caligula, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Suetonius4.php
13. Gilles de Rais – Wikipedia, accessed December 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais
14. Gilles de Rais | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed December 9, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/gilles-de-rais
15. Gilles de Rais | Military Wiki | Fandom, accessed December 9, 2025, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais
16. Gilles de Rais 145 – Brill, accessed December 9, 2025, https://brill.com/display/book/9789004245655/B9789004245655_008.pdf
17. The Trial of Gilles de Rais (1440): An Account – Famous Trials, accessed December 9, 2025, https://famous-trials.com/trial-of-gilles-de-rais/2754-the-trial-of-gilles-de-rais-1440-an-account
18. Confession of Gilles de Rais – Famous Trials, accessed December 9, 2025, https://famous-trials.com/trial-of-gilles-de-rais/2760-confession-of-gilles-de-rais