Final answer:
Vahan likely found it difficult to accept the characterization of Selim as a beast due to the complexities of human perception and Selim's nuanced identity. This is akin to the experiences of Janissaries who were elite but enslaved or Mehmed II's emotional response to the consequences of his conquests.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question relates to the experiences of Vahan in accepting the portrayal of Selim as a beast, likely within a historical or literary context. It touches upon the complexities of human perception and reputation, particularly in the landscape of historical narratives involving characters subjected to harsh judgments.
The memoir of Konstantin Mihailović details the arduous journey and suffering of the Janissaries, elite soldiers who despite their status, remained enslaved. The experiences underscore the Janissaries' conflicted existence; they were elite members within society but were still bound by the limitations and harsh realities of enslavement.
When reviewing the Ottoman Empire's history, one also encounters the account of Mehmed II, whose conquests were driven by a desire to prove himself and expand the empire. During the siege of Constantinople in 1453, the aftermath filled Mehmed II with regret, revealing the human capacity for introspection and remorse, even within a leader known for his military conquests.
Through these historical accounts, one can infer that the characterization of historical figures such as Selim can be multi-faceted and complex, making it difficult to accept simple, one-dimensional depictions like that of a beast.