Talk:Vlad the Impaler/Archive 2

Dracula's Mother
No source I have consulted names Vlad III's mother as Marya Magdalene. McNally and Florescu say she was Cneajna Musati. Double names or middle names are exceeding rare in the medieval period, it's unlikely any woman would've been named Marya Magdelene Cnjeana. Unless someone can show me a good source for the "Marya Magdalene" name, I will remove it. Missi

Cneajna means princess in Russian and other Slavic languages. --Vladko 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cnjeana is the Romanian word for Princess, it is not a middle name, it is a title given after her name. I am not sure if the name is correct, but it is most definatly formated correctly for the medieval time period, being as she was either of a noble birth, or noble by marriage, what ever her name may be it would most definatly be followed by that title after she was married, if not before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.31.157.162 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

Vlad II's Mother
[moved up to be near related section]

I have heard from a couple reliable sources that Vlad II's mother was the Marya Magdalene who was spoke about earlier
 * What? Dahn 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Marya Magdalene Was Dracluea, Vald mother as stated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.186.77.196 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2006.

[end moved up]


 * Does anyone have anything citable on this? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, she would have been about 1400 years old when Vlad was born, wouldn't she? Corvus cornix 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus
Without strong proof showing Mary Magdalene had the same name as Jesus' whore/friend, then I suspect it would be mistake to promote such hearsay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.120.83.2 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Atrocities
"In 1459, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Dracula had thirty thousand of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braşov impaled."

In 1785 Brasov had 17.671 inhabitants.How many did it have in 1459?


 * Good observation. This might warrant a disputed-tag for the article. Obviously that number is exaggerated, at the very least (It'd have to be a huge city to even have 30,000 merchants and officials at that time). This article does need a lot more sources, given how it's a subject with plenty of exaggeration going around. --BluePlatypus 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

the article says the following ''Dracula usually had a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the anus and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth.'' This description does not make sense. If a not too sharp stake was to be used so as not to kill too fast, the stake would never be stuck in up to going out through the mouth : a) to push the stake that far, it would need to be sharp so as to go through the mass of intestines and the diaphragm; b) if pushed that far, the victim would be dead before the executioners were finished, because of major injuries to the diaphragm, the heart, lungs, or large vessels in the area, and pushing the stake through the throat would cause suffocation in short order. either a sharp stake was used and pushed through the whole body, and the victim was hung up already dead, or a blunt one was pushed only far enough to be wedged in the intestines, and the victim died slowly from internal bleeding and as the contents of the abdominal cavity were pushed up against the diaphragm causing slow suffocation.--Svartalf 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's meant relatively (well it's meant to be sensationalist I imagine). In other words care was taken to not make it as blunt as possible to achieve the outcome - which may or may not have been to push it up through the mouth. -- blankfrackis 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One of my studies in college actually delt with torture in this time period, and I have seen some of the metal pikes that were used to impale victums of this particular type of torture. They are formed to a point, but the point is not particularly sharp. The process would take about 2 to 5 minutes to complete, and often the victum was dead or nearly dead at the time the torture was finished. If you are trying to get an idea of what the pike looked like, think of a pencil. If you sharpen a pencil as sharp as it will go, the pain would not be as great if it stuck you, but if you took that same pencil and wrote with it for a while, it is still sharp enough to drive it into your hand with relative ease, but it will hurt more. Basically, after the pikes were sharpened, usually by sliceing from the center of the tip down and tword the outside in 4 places to form a point, it would then have been dulled slightly on the edges, and at the tip so as not to create a razor blade effect. I realize I have gone long enough about this, but one last comment, the tip was driven ecactly has it is describe, but it was not just oiled, it was first heated up, and then boiling oil was applied to it, so as to help control bleading and prolong the life as long as possible, usually no more than 10 minutes or so, if the heart and lungs were missed. . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.31.157.162 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

"Many have attempted to justify Vlad's actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity." The wording makes it sound like Wikipedia disagrees... NPOV... any thoughts? -Nachosamurai (October 30, 2006)

-

You have the guy impaling 10,000 here, 30,000 there, etc. Presumably these people didn't just meekly go along with it. How many impalers do you need to impale someone who doesn't want to be impaled? And what would they eat? Who would grow it and sell it to them? And so on. Did the entire society and economy revolve around impalement and its supporting services? These numbers seem exagerated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.204.116 (talk • contribs) 11 November 2006.

The number of 30.000 being impaled is without a doubt over the top. But you can't look at the size of a city in the 1700's as a guide for how many was there 300 years earlier. If you look at sources of other large cities such as Bucharest, Moscow, Kiev, London etc. you will notice that the size of a city often jumped significantly within a short period of time. This was caused by large historical events such as war (or impalement), and diseace. I have seen valid and reliable sources for many around this region, but not the one in question, and I don't have a source at hand right now, but I have never the less seen sources proving that the capita in some cities around 1600 and 1700 was reduced from 80.000 to less than 8.000 due to the plague. This could well have happened in the city in question, thus making its' size a mere 17.000 in the 1700's while being significantly larger around the time when Vlad reigned. So only way to know if the impalement of 30.000 is a realistic number, it is necessary to find a source stating the number of citizens at the time in question - and I don't think such a source exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.202.53 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2006.

Plagiarism?
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already, but large parts of the article are copied verbatim from this essay: http://www.eskimo.com/~mwirkk/castle/vlad/vladhist.html
 * I have no idea when this comment was made (I noticed it just now while archiving). Does anyone know if this was addressed? - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Atrocities" section of the article does indeed look like it's been taken nearly verbatim from that essay, minus a couple of word changes. Mcsnee 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire "nine anecdotes" section has been ripped directly off a copyrighted website. It's been reported to the administrator's noticeboard as well- we cannot allow plagiarism on Wiki. -- Daniel Davis 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Candide, or Optimism 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't see this before I restored it. I will unrestore it.  That should settle this whole matter, except for Anittas's disruptive behavior.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nine anecdotes
This section is utterly unsourced. Even if they're just legends, we need something to indicate where the source came from for these legends, or else I will remove them. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The anecdotes are mentioned in the book by Florescu and also in the Russian-source site that is listed in the reference area. Don't remove anything. --Candide, or Optimism 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then indicate in the section what the sources are. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean footnotes? Since you brought it up, you do it. I'm totally burned out. --Candide, or Optimism 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. There is nothing in the section which explains the anecdotes, just waving a hand and saying the refererences source them is not acceptable sourcing, and I don't have the book available to verify your comment.  If it isn't sourced, it gets deleted.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You will not delete anything. If you do, it will be reverted and you'll be reported. We don't need to add the footnotes and we can't help that you don't have the book. However, you can still verify most of the anecdotes from the Russian document which is also translated in English. --Candide, or Optimism 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you plan on reporting me, but I've started a discussion of this at WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They will stay, since the legend of Dracula is also very much unreferenced.--Preacher, or Princelet 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V NOTHING unreferenced can stay, for ANY reason. Period. --InShaneee 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They are referenced. --Candide, or Optimism 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in the section I'm pointing to. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say. The anecdotes are sourced in the refenrece area. Florescu's book is included in the Reference section. --Candide, or Optimism 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the .doc link that you keep referring to? Where is it in this article?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the External Link section you will see a link to a Doc file with the title: "The Tale of Dracula Russian manuscript circa 1490, with English translation (MS Word format)". >Can you find it? --Candide, or Optimism 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, that's what I've been asking for all along. Now, do you know how to do footnotes, because I don't.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do know and it takes time; and unfortunatelly, not as fun as chatting with you and InShaneee. See this. As it says in the article, footnotes are not mandatory. --Candide, or Optimism 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

<-Back to the left - Not, it says This format is not mandatory; editors are free to use a different method. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnotes are not mandatory. If you don't believe me, ask in ANI. --Candide, or Optimism 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Drăculea – how it was written originally?
Re: His son Vlad III would later use in several documents the surname Drăculea,… Could it really be written with ă in the XVth century? Afaik, modern Romanian alphabet was introduced only four centuries later… So how was this variant of Vlad’s name written in original documents? Could it be, that it was written in Cyrillic letters and Drăculea is just a modern Romanian transliteration?--Imrek 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Most certainly it was written in cyrillic lettres, and Drăculea is the modern romanian transliteration. Actually, as you should know, the letter ă was added in the romanian alphabet to realise a better mapping of the old Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, so it must have been written with the letter Ъ. Mihai -talk 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stocker was somewhat inspired by vlad but did not intend Dracula to be vlad Dragon Emperor 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be "Дракуля," but I'm not entirely sure. Jecowa 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it was likely Дръкл&#x0463;.--Alex:Dan 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vlad Dracula
i dont know any historical document associating the name of Vlad the Impaler with Dracula. i know this association is beletristical/fantasy thing. if anyone can bring evidence that the name Vlad Dracula was employed in historic documents (no, Bram Stoker's book is not historic document) then name Vlad Dracula stays. until then, i will remove then name Vlad Dracula and replace it with Vlad the Impaler. however exciting it would be to have a Vlad Dracula, wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia Criztu 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) criztu
 * Actually the name was widely used in reference to him in his time (and it is not at all "belletristic"). "Basarab" is a modern cognomen used by Romanians who want to enhance the vision of a dynasty, and, just as you do, have a POV problem with the name "Dracula". In fact, the only thing belletristic is the added aesthetical value to the name, not the name itself. Dahn 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I read there is this document of a chronicler of his, noting his self designation as Draculea. I read Dracula is the name used in Saxon Pamphlets (i consider them beletristics) that propagated his torture thing. it is easy to conclude that this polish Jan Dlugosz had no direct contact with Vlad Draculea, knowing him by third party sources, and that he wrote down the name Dracula propagated by Saxon pamphlets. i have to say that my "i dont know any historical document associating the name of Vlad the Impaler with Dracula" is unclear. by "historical document associating Vlad with Dracula" i mean "first hand sources using the name Vlad Dracula", Jan Dlugosz's annals are not first hand sources, as i explained above. ehrmm, i hope i am clear this time :) Criztu 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * points:


 * if name Vlad Dracula was used in documents other than literature/fiction/beletristics, then u should provide proof of such use of Vlad Dracula in documents.
 * there is no main article entitled Ceashca altho this is the nickname most of romanians refer to Nicolae Ceausescu
 * there is no JFK article altho this is the "sort of a nickname" most of the americans recognise as being John F. Kennedy president of US.
 * the name Vlad Basarab was the name of Vlad Tepes/Impaler, since his forefathers bore the name Basarab. check Britannica, i dont think Britannica want to enhance the vision of a dynasty. there is nothing to discuss about whether his family originated from Basarab. there is nothing wrong to outline that Vlads forefathers held the throne of Wallachia before him, qualifying the Basarabs as a dynasty.
 * Draculea is a nickname of Vlad Basarab. Dynastic name Vlad Basarab has precedence/preemption over nickname Vlad Dracula, and explaining such basic thing to anyone moving Vlad III Basarab to Vlad III Dracula is waste of time.
 * Dracula is a character of a fictional work by Bram Stoker. having Vlad III Dracula as title of an article about Vlad III Basarab, I considered as a bending of an encyclopedia standard. nickname Vlad III Dracula should redirect to dynastic name Vlad III Basarab if a dynastic name Vlad III Basarab couldnt be demonstrated as false.


 * I will wait a few days so anyone can demonstrate how Vlad Dracula would be more accurate/relevant than Vlad Basarab, and for any other argumentation Criztu 07:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just passing the following along from Anittas. The non-code-page-1252 characters were all messed up in what he sent me (just so it's clear what I was dealing with, it came through with things like "Ã®mpreunÄ cu puÅ£ini [luptÄtori]"); I've done my best to fix, but I'm in something of a hurry, so there may be some typos, which anyone may feel free to fix. I've left out some ad hominem remarks. - Jmabel | Talk 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[Start forwarded material from Anittas] http://www.stefancelmare.ro/cronici-straine.htm#

RAPORTUL LUI LADISLAU, SLUJITORUL LUI VLAD ŢEPEŞ (7 AUGUST 1476)

Lauda lui Dumnezeu, din ziua de 7 august, ora 22. Darea de seamă a lui Ladislau, omul voievodului Draculea[1], venit în noaptea dinainte din Moldova, de unde era plecat de vreo 10 zile[2] şi zice:

Dlugozs:

"In această expediţiune, Dracula fu ucis din cauza înşelăciunii unui rob al său"

Felix P:

"Dracula[1], împreună cu puţini [lupttori], dar aleşi, atunci când Mahomed, împăratul turcilor, cuprinsese Valahia Mare şi se grăbea să o ocupe pe cea mică, l-a atacat aci în a doua veghe a nopţii şi l-a pus pe fugă cu mare măcel al [oamenilor] săi şi l-a silit să-şi facă întoarsă calea cu mare ruşine."

Letter of Stephen the Great to Venice, 1477

"şi aşa am făcut îndată şi am mers, eu dintr-o parte şi căpitanul craiului dintr-alta, şi ne-am unit şi am pus în domnie pe zisul Drăculea. Isprăvind aceasta, el m-a rugat să-i las, pentru paza lui, oameni de-ai noştri, căci în valahi [munteni] nu se prea încredea; şi i-am lăsat 200 de oameni din curtenii mei."

http://www.stefancelmare.ro/izvoare.htm

[End forwarded material from Anittas]

all these romanian translations have what i call "the style of contemporary romanian orthodox church". the site is a religious site. it doesnt offers notes to whether the translated names Dracula and Draculea are kept in their original forms. Even if Dracula is kept from an original form, i still consider the name Vlad III Basarab has precedence to Vlad III Dracula. I think an encyclopedia should list rulers by their name, dynastic name, and their nicknames offered only as additional info Criztu 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm posting a response from Anittas. Again I have removed ad hominem remarks.-- Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[Start forwarded material from Anittas]

The translations are accurate. It doesn't matter that the site is religious, because they just posted the sources as they were. It is well known that Dracula was called Dracula or Draculea and that his father was known as Dracul. If you would have read the history of that age, you would have known. Also, as you were told by me and Leinarius, before; the -lea suffix means "al lui" -- standing for 'the son of'.

Here are more sources from Dlugosz which are not from that site, but from his book.

The Annals of Jan Jan Długosz ISBN 1901019004

page 594

"Dracula is then treacherously murdered by one of his slaves"

page

"Voivode Stephen of Walachia, having recruited a fresh army, makes another foray into Bessarabia, where he captures Dracula's son, Radulon."

If you compare the first source written in English with the same source written in Romanian, you will see that the translation is accurate. About the second source: the Poles called Moldavia for Walachia and Wallachia for Bessarabia. Dracula also signed his name as Dracula or Draculea. … We don't say Stephen Musat; we say Stephen III of Moldavia or Stephen the Great. We don't say Michael Basarab; we say Michael the Brave…

[End forwarded material from Anittas]


 * 1)do you imply "Vlad III Basarab" would be less accurate than "Vlad III Dracula" ? Criztu 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2)do you suggest wikipedia should retain the nickname of Vlad as the title of the article instead of retaining the name of his family/dynasty/whatever ? in such case would his other nicknames "Vlad III the Impaler" or "Vlad III Draculea" qualify less than "Vlad III Dracula" as title of the article ? Criztu 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 3)why should "Vlad III Dracula" have precedence over "Vlad III Basarab"' ? Criztu 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 4)since Michael the Brave and Stephan the Great are translations of romanian Mihai Viteazul and Stefan cel Mare, wouldnt this reasoning require changing Vlad Dracula with Vlad the Impaler, which is translation of romanian Vlad Tepes ? I would prefer to see Vlad Tepes as the name of the article, but on the other hand, Vlad III Basarab would be more accurate in terms of Rulers of Wallachia. It would make following the branches of Valachia's ruling families easier to follow, since i use Wikipedia to access ordered information. I need to find out quickly who's son was Vlad, if he was Vlad I, II or III, and from what family of nobles did he rose to the throne of Wallachia. Criztu 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

as a note, I am not aware of an expert study on the etymology of Draculea. if anyone can bring such study here, it would be great, otherwise, such "-lea" in Draculea means "son of Dracul" have no guarantee. I can say "-lea" in Draculea doesnt mean "son of Dracul", as "-lea" from Otelea (a romanian name) doesnt mean "son of Ote"  Criztu 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---As another note: the suffix "-lea" does indeed mean "son of" or "of the X kind"/ "of the X family". It is a attributive suffix in romanian. And... by the way: Otelea (pronounced Otseleah) does not mean "son of Otse"... That is a naive deduction. It means "of the steel-kind" or "of the steel maker's family"... The suffix is attributive - there is absolutely NO DOUBT about this. Just move on, please.Leinarius
 * I don't know if 'lea' ever meant son of, but Leinarius is right that it is, or rather was an attributive suffix. I don't know of examples of current usage, except in the ordinal numbers: al doi-lea, al trei-lea, and so on.C0gnate 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Anittas adds, "there was a Draculesti [I presume Draculeşti - JM] branch of the Basarab family; the Basarab family split in two after the death of Mircea; there were two factions: the Draculesti and the Danesti [I presume Daneşti - JM] . Laiota, for instance, belonged to the Danesti faction." - Jmabel | Talk 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, the situation here i see it as follows. If i search "Britannica Vlad Tepes" i find an article in Britannica named Vlad III Tepes, also known as Vlad III the Impaler. if i search "Britannica Vlad Dracula" i find nothing. some editors of Wikipedia are fine with Vlad III Dracula, some editors of Wikipedia are fine with Vlad III Tepes or Vlad III the Impaler, or Vlad III Basarab. Romanian oficial history institutions call this guy Vlad III Tepes. which side has better expertise so we can use as guide for the title of this article ? Britannica and Romanian oficial history academics, or a number of Wikpedia editors ? Criztu 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit like a messenger boy here. Anittas' response:

[Begin copied] Britannica doesn't have an article on Vlad Tepes; instead, his name is being mentioned in other sources. It is true that in Romania, Dracula is known as Vlad Tepes, but Wikipedia works differently. The Romanian academia uses the name Tepes because it's the popular name that Romanians know him by, but they never deny that he had the name Dracula. Outside Romania, the situation is different: he is mostly known as Dracula, not as Tepes. Wikipedia has its own policy, different from the one of Britannica and Romania. The official name of Vlad, in the contemporary sources and much of history, is Dracula. Tepes was added later, after his death, after a nickname that the Turks gave him. One of his descendents later adopted the name Tepelus. You claimed that the name is pure fantasy and asked for sources. You were given plenty of sources. Now you take the argument on a different level, saying that the title should be changed to Vlad Tepes because in Romania he is called Vlad Tepes. Well, that's not a convincing argument.

And since Tepes was never a part of his name or title, if we were to have it as the title of the article, we would have to transliterate it as Vlad the Impaler. [End copied]

My one quick side remark: that would be translate, not transliterate. - Jmabel | Talk 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, have u searched "Britannica Vlad III Tepes" or "Britannica Vlad III Basarab" or "Britannica Vlad III the Impaler" ? have u searched "Britannica Vlad III Dracula" ? Criztu 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think Britannica is particularly relevant here. The issue—insofar as there is an issue—is our own naming standards. I think that the article is in the correct place and that all of these others should redirect here. I also think that, given that "Vlad the Impaler", "Vlad Tepes" (sadly, usually just like that, without the diacritics), and "Vlad Dracula" are all in common use in English, the issue of which we use is a minor one, and we have wasted a lot of time on this. As long as all the redirects are there, we are serving our readers well. The rest of this is nitpicking, and the time would better be spent on more substantive matters. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * redirecting to Vlad III the Impaler is not a huge task. I just move page to Vlad III the Impaler and create a redirect. that is all required. Britannica and Romanian academic sources have more expertise than us all. They are my standard Criztu 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: they shouldn't be our standard. Wikipedia has its own standards for naming. Romanian academic sources, while quite important for someone of limited fame, are not crucial here, given that we are concerned mainly with names used in English-language contexts. And Britannica simply has different rules than we do for choosing names for titles of articles on nobility and royalty: following them slavishly in this respect would be throwing away our own manual of style. - Jmabel | Talk 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * pls provide link to wikipedia manual of style regarding Vlad III Basarab Criztu 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I replied to more or less the same question elsewhere, one relevant passage is at Manual_of_Style_(biographies): "The article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There's also Naming conventions (people) and Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda
there are people who might not be aquainted to the Propaganda that targeted Vlad III throughout the history of the Romanian Principalities. there are romanian authors suggesting hungarian propagandists found this Bram Stoker and gave him material about Elisabeth Bathory and stuff, and manipulated him into this Dracula thing. there are fans of this Vampire thing that are pushing for a real Dracula Prince across the internet. whatever the reasons the following quotes from the article lead to a distortion of Wikipedia article about Vlad III.

Wallachian royalty and the family background of Dracula instead of family background of Vlad III

Dracula's grandfather instead of Vlad III's father

Dracula seems to have had three brothers instead of Vlad III had 3 bros

...was Dracula's half-brother instead of Vlad III's 1/2 bro

he continuously tried to replace Dracula instead of he tried to replace Vlad III

and so on and so on.

these are edits of propaganda pushers. I would request Protection for this page but i am not skilled in this matter. Instead, i will remove them until an admin will step in and RfP (i think this is the abreviation) Criztu 17:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * desigur,e o vastă conspiraţie...

pfiuuu, the section "Atrocities" is such a deep hole, i wont dive in that :)) Criztu 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what you're really saying is that the term Dracula is easily overused because Vlad is known as Vlad Tepes, not Vlad Dracula (except to teenage Americans).  Also, there is zero support for any Hungarians' manipulation of Bram Stoker.  The Hungarians were basically allies of Vlad Tepes and would have no cause to do something so silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.120.83.2 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

moving to Vlad III Basarab, or Vlad III the Impaler, or Vlad III Draculea
points:
 * the name of the guy was Vlad III, seems he employed Draculea to refer to himself
 * he came from a family of rulers of romanian principalities, called Basarabs. modern historians favour Vlad III Basarab
 * he is known in romanian as Vlad III Tepes (english Vlad III the Impaler) alongside rulers with similar uber names, like Michael the Brave, Mircea the Elder, Stefan the Great, etc. this name is also favoured by modern historians, at least Britannica and Romanian academy
 * medieval propaganda directed against Vlad III, modern Dracula-fans propaganda, and other sorts of propagandas, call Vlad III as Dracula.

I think the minimum of respect for Vlad III should be granted in a wikipedia, in that an objective name must have precedence over a defamatory name (Dracula is defamatory since the saxon pamphlets were defamatory, and they propagated the name Dracula). no one uses the name the anti-american propaganda uses for the United States in this encyclopedia, am i right ? noone can argue that Vlad III the Impaler or Vlad III Basarab are not known in english lang. an article Vlad III Dracula shifts things towards a fantasy-horror-entertainment aproach wikipedia, rather than an objective aproach wikipedia

having expressed my opinnion on this matter, i will wait anoter few days so anyone can realise the immensity of such name Vlad III Dracula on an encyclopedia. Criztu 17:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O, thank you for your kind help, Criztu... Now, I will wait for another few years so you can realise the immensity of not using diacritics in Romanian and the importance of writing in proper English when you start a series of massive edits on English wikipedia. Dahn 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will now move the page Vlad III Dracula to Vlad III the Impaler. I will list the reasons for such move once again
 * 1,030,000 hits for "Vlad the Impaler" and 587,000 hits for "Vlad Dracula".
 * Dracula is a transliterated name of Draculea, propagated mainly by saxon pamphlets.
 * Dracula is mostly associated with a vampire count, Vlad III was a ruler.
 * Vlad the Impaler is the name Britannica uses for Vlad III Basarab. Criztu 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent decision based on sound reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.120.83.2 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Snagov Sources?
"Still others say that he was killed by his brother whom at the time was with the turks and his step father; his brother stabbed him to death. He was then buried in the church from which he was taken out of. Some people say that his father came to visit the coffin and was found beheaded. Also that somewhere in the late 1800's early 1900's when archyologists dug up the coffin the tomb had only animal bones in it."

Up above the passage, it says his brother, Radu the Handsome, had died, and now it says that his brother may have killed him? Sometime in the late 1800s' early 1900's? In addition to being terrible grammar and mispelling, I'm wondering if there's a source. It seems highly dubious. I'm going to wait before I remove it, but I will tag it as citation needed. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated.151.203.96.36 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Draculea/Dracula applied to Vlad II ?
According to Romanian historian Constantin Rezachevici, the nickname Draculea/Dracula was first applied to Vlad II, father of Vlad III:
 * Quote #1: “Even before Vlad Tepes' reign in Romania, the boyar Albu had called Vlad Dracul (which was a nickname known outside of Romania), simply Draculea (Andreescu 150-51), the popular exclusively Romanian name. The Venetian messenger Bartholomeo de Jano and his contemporary Greek chroniclers Leonicos Chalkokondyles and Critobul of Imbros have also called him Draculea (Andreescu 154-55). Even Iancu of Hunedora, who executed him, made mention on December 17, 1456, of “infidelem Drakwlam wayvodem” (Documenta 461). <...> It is clear that Draculea (Dracula) was a popular nickname for Vlad Dracul, meaning a person belonging to the Order of the Dragon. For his son, Vlad Tepes, the name “Dracula” became through affiliation an alternative, not only a nickname, with the side effect of increasing his bad reputation, with its diabolical meaning, even though originally, in his father's days, “Dracul” did not have a malevolent meaning.”
 * Quote #2: “Although Vlad Tepes and his descendants have never used the symbol of the Order of the Dragon, he has inherited the nickname of his father Draculea/Dracula, which has become a family name (outside the country).”
 * (From the Order of the Dragon to Dracula. Constantin Rezachevici (rtf file))

If so, Draculea could not mean “son of Dracul”...--Imrek 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources?
No sources whatsoever in the "Alleged Atrocities" section, and worse, it reads like a (bad) fiction novel:

"In 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened..." I mean, give me a break.

I could take this entire section apart line by line.

"The corpses were often left decaying for months." Who says they were often left decaying for months? How do you know they weren't cleaned up within three to five days?

"Thousands were often impaled at a single time. 10,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Vlad the Impaler had once lived) in 1460. The previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Vlad the Impaler had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braşov that were breaking his authority impaled."

This is HUGE. This guy impaled 40,000 of his own subjects in 2 years? Obviously, if this is at all true it must be widely documented; cite it!

''"Vlad the Impaler began his reign of terror almost as soon as he came to power. His first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire of revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Vlad was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father's assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Vlad asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their life times. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. One answered that at least thirty princes had held the throne during his life. None had seen less than seven reigns. Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgovişte to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeş River. Vlad the Impaler was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin."''

OK this is just too much, dude. Are you just making it up as you go along or what? You're reporting what was actually SPOKEN at this meeting without sources?

Every word in the "alledged atrocities" section is unsubstantiated and I move that it be cited, eliminated, or at least qualified with a disclaimer saying, "if you want to waste 2 minutes of your life, please read this section." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.46 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006.


 * For what it's worth the (quite citable, and public domain) 1911 Britannica has:

"The stories of his ferocious savagery exceed belief. He is said to have feasted amongst his impaled victims. When the sultan Mahomet, infuriated at the impalement of his envoy, the pasha of Vidin, who had been charged with Vlad's deposition, invaded Walachia in person with an immense host, he is said to have found at one spot a forest of pales on which were the bodies of men, women and children."
 * The first sentence of that is interestingly ambiguous, no? - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of this, including his revenge against the boyars could be cited from (and may have been taken without acknowledgment from) The Real Dracula by John Fasulo. It's a bit breezy in style, but looks well footnoted. It is from The Ithaca College History Journal, which is admittedly an undergraduate journal. If people think that makes it insufficiently reliable (I'm 50-50 on that), then I'd suggest following one step up the citation food-chain to the materials Fasulo cites. - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Did Braşov even have 30,000 inhabitants in the 15th century (let alone 'merchants and officials')? Does anyone believe that there were massacres on that scale without written reports at the time and without any hard evidence surviving? Did Sibiu have a population of 10,000? There are some very obvious points here. Moreover, at the risk of being a shade gruesome, it's worth pointing out that impalement (especially in the manner described in the text) was a time-consuming method of execution. I'm not asking anyone to do OR, but skepticism, based on common sense, is called for. Norvo 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no way Brasov had 30K residents. It's laughable on its' face.

radu???
were Radu the handsome and mehmed the second gay lovers. - Zadsat 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they were. McNally and Florescu explain that during their period of captivity, Vlad resisted Mehmed's sexual advances but Radu certainly did not. That sort of thing was common in the Ottoman Empire. It should probably be included here.Shield2 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugliest wiki entry
This is probably the ugliest wiki entry I've ever seen. It's a horrible mess. It seems to me, that half of the article is just someones opinion, with very factual information. I could easily see this wiki article being half it's size.

It seems that most of the article is taken directly from http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm This whole article needs to be redone. It seems as if it is plagiarized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boogiebugger (talk • contribs) 23 October 2006.


 * Calling it "ugly" doesn't really make for much action anyone can take.


 * On the other hand, if there is evidence of plagiarism:
 * Could you be more concrete about what passages you think are plagiarised? You say "most of the article": are there actually multiple sections lifted from elsewhere?
 * If, indeed, there is apparent plagiarism, we should look through the history, because if it got there through someone who is still an active user, we may need to address more than a single article.
 * Thanks in advance for any clarifications. - Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * twitch* I still think it's pretty ugly. >_< 'Cuz now I have pictures in my head about babies on stakes, women with sticks up their butts, and grown men screaming and crying. Ugh.

And a skinned woman with her privates cut off. Lovely. Just /lovely/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.33.200 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2006.

Place of Birth
I would like for us to come to a consensus about the name of the city where Vlad III was born, and how it is described (e.g.: ,, –OR– ,,, –OR– some other naming convention...). I am neither an experienced writer of research papers nor of Wikipedia articles, so I do not know what the convention is. If you (anyone reading this) know what the rules are, or can point us to the correct style-sheet for this, please post the link here. Thanks in advance. BlueCerinthe (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I didn't realize this topic had already been initiated at the bottom of this Discussion page under "Language used in the article?". Please don't answer my question about style here, but go to that section, instead, so we can keep it all in one place.  Thanks in advance! :) BlueCerinthe (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Early Years
This section - like many others in this article - is a joke. The first phrase states he is born in Transylvania, then in the next Wallachia is mentioned as his native country!!! Make up your mind people!!! This whole article is full of mistakes and POV's. Shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.144.15 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it says that in the article that Vlad was a Wallachian voivode and his father was native Wallachian. Please tell how the article is full of mistakes and POV's so we may try to make it better. Laurukainen (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"In the year of his birth Vlad's father ( Darth Vader ), known under the nickname the Dragon (Romanian: Dracul) had traveled to Nuremberg, today located in Germany, where he had been vested into the Order of the Dragon." I presume that the Darth Vader part is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.244.106 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite?
There seems to be an unsourced section under 'German Stories' with some stories about Vlad's sexuality. Could someone either remove this or find a source for it (and rewrite for grammar)? 93.97.106.42 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Giford


 * No, the paragraph in question does not refer to Vlad's sexuality, but rather his determination that women give up their own sexual vanity. May I request, however, that these claims be sourced? (By the way, I found no problem at all with the grammar, and ask that you please be sure of your language skills before making an emberassing comment about a clearly talented writer's literary expertise.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodologist (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism and accuracy
People keep putting remarks in almost random sections above, but there are two serious matters that have not been addressed here:


 * 1) Is there plagiarized material here that needs to be removed?
 * 2) Does the article contain grossly exaggerated, uncited numbers on the numbers of impalements?

- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Axi 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, there are obviously many fragments from this. What's the copyright status on them?
 * 2) The numbers of the impaled people may have citations, but they're nonetheless aberrant considering the estimated size of the population at the time in Braşov and Sibiu (less than 10.000 inhabitants each), as well as in the region (400-700.000 people in Wallachia, around 1 million in Transylvania). For instance, in _M. Bărbulescu, D. Deletant, K. Hitchins, Ş. Papacostea, P. Teodor, Istoria României, Corint, Bucharest, 2002, ISBN 973-653-215-1_ the figures mentioned are 400.000 inhabitants for Wallachia in the 15th century (p.136) and at most 10.000 inhabitants in Braşov (p.137).


 * 1) Clearly, if material is plagiarized from Porter it should be removed, or at least paraphrased so as not to violate copyright.
 * 2) The other matter is trickier to handle. No original research has been variously interpreted in terms of the degree to which it allows us to deal with contradictory statements in our sources. As it has mainly been interpreted, it does not allow nearly the space for well-informed judgment that I personally would be inclined to grant. It seems pretty clear that drawing ones own conclusions is not allowed. There is some question about whether it is even permitted to juxtapose information that casts doubt upon a source. I personally think this last is a crock, and in this case it is exactly what I would suggest doing: if you have good citable population statistics for the period, just state them after the claims you find dubious, and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, well-informed judgments are perfectly all right, otherwise we shouldn't be able to produce any coherent knowledge mass at all, but the well-informed judgments mustn't be presented as personal, and they must belong to the textual discourse as a natural development based on citations and well known facts. Note: as long as you compose a text, you compose a story that is unique, and therefore is based on personal judgement – but it may only deviate this much from other texts, else some reader will criticize the text content. If none says your text is original research, then it isn't. Said: Rursus 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting aspect of our culture: we expect every individual to reach on their own the consensus from a variety of stated positions, each of which has a counterpoint. Is there value in stating publically that consensus? Probably so given that the attainment of a consensus approach requires an inference, and not everyone can infer everything. (says socionics) Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotes and a doubt
In the biography section fo the text, more precissely here, it mentions that "Vlad resided with his new wife in a house in the Hungarian capital", wich was "the setting of the thief anecdote". Where is this anecdote mentioned? Also, about his death and some other issues, I remember to have seen a documentary where some Florescu descendants (I don't remember their names) went to Romania, asked the head of Romanian orthodox church for permission to carry on an archeoligocal investigation, and then uncovered some tombstones of their family. But more importantly, they talked about how one of their relatives found what they assumed to be Dracula's tomb, buried purposelly on a church's entrance so everyone would step on it. They relate how their relative opened the tomb and the body that was pretty well preserved almost disintegrated in contact with fresh air. Then the film end as they sleep a night on Dracula's castle (not Bran's castle, but another one more ruined and isolated over a clif in the middle of the wilderness), and after that night they sent some priests to exorcise the place, because yet another of their relatives (they seem to be a big family) fatally injured himself while climbing towards the castle, even tough the slope isn't that great. --Matthewfarenheit 10:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Living Descendants
Are there any living descendants of Vlad Tepes surviving in the world today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.72.186 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes they are. If I remember corectly, princess Brianna Caradjea is one of them. But don't take this as a fact, I'm not very shure.--Alex:Dan 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting your uncertainty. Many people who are discussing this article seem unwilling to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodologist (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Brianna Caradjea is Vlad Tepes' descendant. At least a documentary of Vlad's life in some show called 'The Most Evil Men In History' revealed that she was. If you do not believe me, just search Youtube, however silly that sound. That's at least where I saw it.

Transylvania was never under "Turkish domination"
"Transylvania had long been a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it too had endured a long period of Turkish domination and its culture was still largely medieval." Moldavia, Wallachia, and especially most of modern-day Hungary were under Turkish domination at one time or another. But even after Hungary was defeated at the Battle of Mohacs, Transylvania was an Ottoman vassal that was semi-independant and under both Turkish and Habsburg influence and was constantly switching sides.Shield2 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transylvania, Moldova and Wallachia were all semi-independent countries, but while the last two were paying a tribut, Transylvania was "buying its peace" with a "gift", at a lower price than Moldova and Walachia. Everybody must understand that neither one of the three principalities were ever under Turkish reign.--Alex:Dan 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Later edit: Yes, she is.--Alex:Dan 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And then again, Vlad (Vladislav? Vladimir?) never really ruled over Transilvania. He was a Wallachian prince with a capital called Targovishte.

Vampirism and rabies
In reference to the discussion of the association of Dracula with vampirism, see the discussions of the influence of rabies epidemics with tales of vampires and werewolves at http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/vampire/rabies.html. The similarity of the modern conception of vampires and human manifestations of rabies are discussed in an old article in the medical journal "Neurology", and the association with eastern Europe especially Transylvania supposedly coincides with a major epidemic in that region. Matt4321Matt4321 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please forward such documentation and commentary to the vampire page. This page is not about vampires.  It is about a real human Vlad Tepes, who was a ruler in Romania and ally to Hungary against the Ottomans.

Are there still plagiarism concerns?
Does anyone still have concerns about plagiarism in any portion of this article? Or have these all been addressed? - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "Atrocities" section still seems to be taken directly from the aforementioned site (http://www.eskimo.com/~mwirkk/castle/vlad/vladhist.html). 64.173.240.130 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Endless Vandalism
Mate... As of late, this article has been bombarded with an endless dose of vandalism edits that it happens almost daily on my watch list! Where do you get these people?Batmen (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dracul/Dracula
It was always my understanding, from a source that I cannot cite, but I remember clearly that it was an A&E documentary, that Vlad II was Dracul (as mentioned) and Vlad III was Dracula, which means 'son of Dracul', the 'a' making the linguistic addition to refer to 'son' or 'offspring'. The article seems to counter this. Dracul meaning 'son of Dracul' doesn't make sense linguistically. How can the word Dracul itself mean 'the son of Dracul'? Does anyone have any ideas on this? --Bentonia School 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 'Drăculea' means "the little 'Dracul'", it's a dimminutive.--Alex:Dan 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw one on History Channel a few weeks ago that gave it as Vlad 2 "Dracul" and Vlad 3 as "Draculya" or, in English, "Dracula". Not really sure beyond that.--Marhawkman 18:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

--Dracul actually means The devil and for sure it does not mean The dragon as it shows in the article. -AlexOn(ro.wiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.197.174 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the opening section, it says George Bush and John Kerry are both related to Vlad III. Is this true or vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.5.123 (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Vandalism. This article is being constantly attacked by sad, immature idiots. --QuasarTE 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, thats quite funny.

i'm sorry i couldn't figure out how to create a new topic, i'm new. however, i'm wondering at the validity of Vlad being kept in an underground dungeon, while in his brother, Radu, and him were held as hostages by the Ottoman empire...according to Florescu and McNally, previously referred to, it appears that while vlad was whipped for being a stubborn student, both boys were being treated fairly well, with some of the best tutors they could have. It says that the Ottoman Empire wanted to keep them as hostages partially just to try and make their father keep his promise, but also because they wanted to make a good impression on potential princes, so when they were on the throne they would side with the Ottoman Empire.


 * Hmm, dear Noname, make a subpage under your own userpage, such as if you're registered as User:Noname, you may create a subpage User:Noname/Undisclosed_Facts, and write it there! Elsewhere, the Wikipedia policies are boring and strict (but reasonable), and some angry administrator will whip you up (verbally at best) if you don't behave according to policies. Said: Rursus 12:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The vampire legend and Romanian attitudes
I have added the tag to the "The vampire legend and Romanian attitudes" section, as there is no conclusive evidence that Stoker did, in fact, base his Dracula on Vlad. There is much argument about this, and no proof. Corvus cornix 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. How come "noinclude" didn't keep the tag from being transcluded?  Corvus cornix 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

- This seems rather asinine to me. It's regarded as common sense, if not certain that he at least took the name "Dracula" from Romanian History. From the small google search sample I took, this is widely regarded as basic fact.

I would have to agree. It just doesn't seem likely to me that he would arbitrarily pick a name, that happened to be a Romanian leader known for his bloody lifestyle, who also happened to live in a castle. Call me crazy.

I would like to remove this sentence: "Why Stoker chose to relocate his vampire from Wallachia to the north of Transylvania remains a mystery." It is not a mystery and Stoker did not relocate his vampire from Wallachia to Transylvania. He had already decided to place his novel in Transylvania before he found out the name Dracula from Wilkinsosn's book "Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldova" for his vampire. This is quite clearly proven in Christopher Fraylling's book "Vampyres. Lord Byron to Count Dracula. Laurukainen (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Real face
Vlad was a well reported drug addict. There are various historical documents about him and his addiction; reported by English, Turks, Romanians, Italians and even by Arabs and Egyptian historians. It is known that especially at night, when he was under the influence of cannabis sativa, he believed that he was a wild animal (Mirza Ibrahim Sultan reported this in detail). In several occasions he really bit some female servants and sex slaves and seriously hurt most of them (John Capgrave clearly reported this in his personal notes: "When I saw the poor young lady with a wide open cut in her throat and that blood! My God!.. that blood! She passed out immediately. Me and Hingeston were in absolute shock!"). The blood drinking myth directly comes from this behaviour.

Turks never loved him, he helped Hungarians a lot. Ottoman never invaded there clearly but it took only 6 Turks to kill him in his very well protected mansion in Kazikli Tepe (means Impaling Hill in Turkish), where he impaled 2 Turkish innocent envoys only a few weeks ago. His body decapitated by Mustafa The Lion (the head of security actions of the Ottoman Empire; he was personally among 6) and his head taken to Edirne where it has been placed in a stake and shown to people for 40 days. The head probably preserved in resin or in honey for that period, then burned.

--88.106.52.59 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is like 'MY BRAIN HURTS!!!'--Alex:Dan 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If only you had one --88.106.107.162 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Æhɯm! If this is true or a reputation, then find some citing sources and add these statements to the article! Said: Rursus 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move back to Vlad Dracula
This page should be moved back to Vlad Dracula. The person who moved it to this one had poor arguments for doing so. There are no proof of Dracula ever being refered to as Tepes by the Romanians while he was alive. His son was latter called Ţepeluş, but that's irrelevant. Dracula was a combination of a family name and a title. It was given to him, just like his father was named Vlad Dracul. All the sources mention him by the name of Dracula and Dracula's servant, Ladislaus, called his master for Dracula. The same did his cousin, Stephen; the chronicler, Dlugosz, and many others. The person who moved the page argued that Dracula meant Devil (which of course does, but also means dragon, which was the reason for the name) and said that it was Saxon propaganda, but that's just silly talk. Dracula used the name of Dracula before coming into conflict with the Saxons; also, the sources call him Dracula and they have nothing to do with the Saxons; and thirdly, his father, who was also named Dracul -- without the a -- had no issues with the Saxons. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree. I see no reason why the (current) page name uses an unflattering nickname for a historical figure.--Marhawkman 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Terriblicity, Alleged atrocities fix plan
sorry, but I think this article is terrible, it is not a neutre article, especialy the alleged things he might have done, and it is also historic inncorect.


 * Dear User:Noname! Please indent your comments by preceeding the line by, and sign your post by adding ~ , so we can identify your comments as belonging to you. Reputations (negative or positive) may occur in an article, but then it should preferrably be moved to a Myths or a Trivia section or some such, so you're probably  in your valuation. Feel free to improve the article yourself! Said: Rursus 12:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The worst section (non-NPOV) is Alleged atrocities which isn't clear about what is a propaganda image and what are facts. Sometimes it refers to atrocities as being a fact, sometimes as a reputation. The section should:
 * get an introductory paragraph that explicitly points out the propaganda character of the section,
 * sort out facts from reputations and propaganda,
 * not mix in speculation or obvious myth, which instead can be moved to a Dracula Vampire article.
 * The guy Vlad might actually have committed atrocities (we know about Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and those distasteful guys), but such allegations must be attested by citations to reliable sources. Said: Rursus 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's capital Targovishte
Vlad was a prince of Wallachia with a capital Targovishte. Why is it that he is often thought of as a ruler of Transylvania? Also, how come there are two Targovishte toponyms: one north of the Danube in Wallachia, another soouth of the Danube in Bulgaria? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

What happened to the image
wasn't there an image of vlad in the article. similar to that in the romanian article?IleanaCosanziana 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but now the image you refer to is there. Said: Rursus 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dracula" redirect?
Is it really best for "Dracula" to redirect here? Most people who type in "dracula" aren't going to be looking for our man Vlad, they're looking for a Bela Lugosi film or the novel by Bram Stoker or the character Count Dracula himself. I've just spent a good fifteen minutes fixing links that were supposed to go to Dracula (novel) but instead ended up here at Vlad Ţepeṣ. Thoughts, anyone? K. Lásztocska 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.GreaterWikiholic 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Candent shlimazel 13:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article already exist???!?!??!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III <? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.99.12 (talk • contribs).
 * It redirects to this article. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no it doesn't! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.99.12 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, it does. It even says so. You're just a n00b, that's all. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no, someone must've just fixed it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.99.12 (talk • contribs).
 * a n00b? wow. I am sorry but that is just being slightly hypocritical on your part Divya da animal lvr (sorry I'm not loged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.163.234 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Infants' impalement
Apart from the appalling lack of references, can somebody explain this please?

"Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother's chests"

I mean, is it even English? How many chests do Romanians have? 83.67.217.254 23:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only a case of a misplaced apostrophe. It should be "their mothers' chests." Then "infants" is plural, "mothers" is plural, "chests" is plural and it all agrees grammatically with itself. (Romanians only have one chest, at least the ones I know.) K. Lásztocska 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

YES IT IS CORRECT ENGLISH, I am an american citizen, and our english is the right english.. infants to chests.. dummy think about it.. english must be your second lang.
 * (To the mess of a sentence above) Seriously??? Thanks for making us Americans look retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.22.16 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy to do after 8 years of Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish name?
In the lead it says he was called "Kazıklı Voyvoda" in Turkish, but I've only ever heard "Kazıklı Bey" (which is the Turkish name given for him later in the article.) Even if both are correct, the current presentation is a bit confusing... K. Lásztocska 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

...come to think of it, is "voyvoda" even a Turkish word?! I know for sure that "bey" is something like "prince", therefore "kazıklı bey" = "the Impaler Prince." Since no one has raised any objections, I'm going to change "voyvoda" to "bey" (at least until some Turk comes along with a citation, or even a Turkish-English dictionary, and slaps me in the noggin with it.) K. Lásztocska 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Turkish novelist Ali Riza Seyfi called him Kazıklı Voyvoda in his novel of the same name (1928). This novel was later filmed as Drakula Istanbul'da (Dracula in Istanbul) (1953). 'Voivode' is indeed a Slavic word but titles of foreign dignitaries are not always translated into ones own language See for instance 'Tsar' and 'Shah' and 'Ayatollah' etc. Colin4C 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, back to square one....is Kazıklı Voyvoda as common a name for him as Kazıklı Bey? I gotta learn Turkish... K. Lásztocska 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I used to work in Ankara as an English teacher, though for some reason the subject of Vlad the Impaler (and vampires) and the correct Turkish terminology to use about them never cropped up in classroom discussions...From what I've read lately, however, I think that the Impaler was (and is?) a sort of bogeyman figure in Turkish legend and folklore. It's interesting that Ali Riza Seyfi in his 1928 novel seems to have conflated the legendary Vlad with Stoker's Vampire. Colin4C 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most Turks would call him Kazıklı Voyvoda. One learns about him in history class. The moniker Kazıklı bey is new to me. If you don't believe me check the corresponding Turkish entry.--Kaanatakan 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, how do the Turks regard Vlad? I'm guessing the Turks have a different perspective on him than that of Romanian nationalists! Colin4C 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Small Edit
Small edit: two dead-links were removed. -Redphone 5001 Redphone5001 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This extract from the intro seems to be POV:


 * His impact on the expansion of the Ottoman Empire is recognizable in that his successful hold against them bought precious time for Western Europe.

Is it wikipedia policy to assert that the expansion of the Ottoman Empire was a bad thing? Colin4C 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that. It says that his resistance favoured Western Europe. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to say, further, that the historical record indicates that Vlad's resistance to the Turks only momentarily held them back, and that any putative 'precious time' was squandered by 'Western Europe' who went on to suffer a series of terrible defeats at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Also Eastern Orthodox Wallachians were looked upon as heretics by contemporary Catholic Western Europe, not as part of a putative grand Christian coalition. Colin4C 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Vlad himself attacked 'Western Europe' between 1457-60 when he launched major attacks against (Catholic) Transylvania from his home base of (Eastern Orthodox) Wallachia. This was an odd way to 'buy precious time' for western resistance against the Turks don't you think? Colin4C 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course expansion of the Ottoman Empire was a bad thing from where Western Europe stood, as Mehmed's own statements and his later actions indicate that he dreamed of outdoing the recreating and outdoing the Roman Empire, only from the East and under Islam. You exaggerate the extent to which Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were at odds in Mehmed and Vlad's time. There were still enough bad feelings to go around regarding events of the previous two centuries, but not nearly to the same extent that they both were at odds with Islam, especially not after 1453. Stephen of Moldavia was recognized as an Athleta Christi by the papacy, and he was an Eastern Orthodox Christian as was Skanderberg. Also, it is definitely true that Vlad's resistance bought time for Western Europe. For one, it delivered an unexpected blow to Mehmed's army from which it took at least a year to recover, during which Hungary and Venice were able to finally get their acts together and sign a defensive alliance against the Ottoman Empire which did much to contain Mehmed's westward ambitions for about a decade. But it was strategically significant in itself, because Mehmed assembled such a huge army with the intent of reducing Wallachia to an Ottoman province. Even some sources I have read that are not favorable to Vlad state that Mehmed tried this and failed (i.e. Babinger, who was writing before Western historians knew much about Vlad or Eastern European history). For there to have been an Ottoman province (and not simply a vassal state) beyond the Danube would have given the Ottoman Empire complete impunity over the Danube, and this was before Columbus, and when a much weaker Western Europe was just beginning to improve its maritime arsenal in response to the Ottoman conquests. Complete control of the Danube would have immediately brought Eastern and Central Europe under Mehmed's control, and allowed him to focus on his Mediterranean and Italian conquests. Ottoman sea power was very threatening to Europe after 1453, but strategically dependant upon land conquests. I do think Vlad's 1457-60 attacks on the Saxons coupled with his professed Eastern Orthodox faith at the time severely hurt his reputation in Western Europe, but they were more politically than religiously motivated and done largely with the intent of protecting (Catholic) Hungarian rule over Transylvania from (also Catholic) German influence. Still, he had Catholic admirers as well as detractors, and there were quite a few esteemed Europeans who did recognize him as a defender of Christian Europe. Much of the resistance against the Ottoman Empire in Mehmed's time was later undone by Suleiman "the Magnificent" decades later, but Mehmed was threatening Europe before the age of Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs. The Hungarian loss at Mohacs is the only real "terrible defeat" suffered by Catholic country except Croatia at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, but earlier than that Mehmed II was on the verge of conquering Italy at the end of his life, and would have had he not but held up in Eastern Europe for decades and/or prevented from directly controlling any territory past the Danube. In between Mehmed and Suleiman, the Ottoman sultans were less aggressive and more concerned with internal administrative issues, while Western Europe was revolutionizing and expanding its maritime prowess. So the previous statement was true and there was no reason to remove it. "Precious time" is redundant in this context, but nevertheless true, as there have been few other instances in history in which Europe was more threatened by what was at the time a far superior invader from the East. 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" atrocities?
A couple of things: Anyway, just a few things I wanted to point out. I didn't want to suddenly go chopping up the article without discussing any of these things first... K. Lásztocska 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not really in dispute that Vlad committed many exceedingly cruel atrocities, is it? I was somewhat startled to see the "alleged" in the section heading, as well as the sentence "Vlad III Ţepeş has been characterized by some as exceedingly cruel." That makes it sound like he was a nice bloke who's gotten an unfairly bad reputation--it certainly looks silly coming right before those extensive paragraphs detailing all his preferred methods of slaughter.
 * 2) And while we're on that topic, is it really necessary to go into so much detail about all the grisly gore and sick mutilations? I certainly don't advocate censorship, but really, portions of this article are a little much for a public encyclopedia. Thoughts?
 * 3) There appears to be some contradiction between the Romanian folklore section and the atrocities section. The sentence "Outside of Romanian folklore the reputation of Vlad Ţepeş is considerably darker" at the beginning of the atrocities section makes it sound like he is basically a positive figure in Romanian folklore, but the folklore section makes it clear that even the Romanians consider him cruel and scary, even as they admire his insistence on honesty etc. That said, I've not had the privilege of growing up surrounded by Romanian folklore, so I don't even know how accurate the folklore section is....


 * According to M.J. Trow's book on Vlad the Impaler a lot of the supposed information in modern books on the ways in which Vlad would impale people (e.g. pushing the stake up the anus etc) is just recent speculation. Unlike crucifixions, which the Nazi's revived for a time, nobody in recent history has been impaled, so how it was done is speculative. Interestingly the much reproduced woodcut showing Mr Vlad having a slap-up dinner surrounded by his impaled victims does not depict the stake-up-anus procedure preferred by modern torture porn obsessives:

Colin4C 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There are a few things that can be disputed, like the scale of those "exceedingly cruel atrocities" (see my comment above on the population of Brasov in the 15th century), but the main issue is how much of the information about these atrocities comes from absurd medieval legends and how much from reliable sources.
 * 2) I suppose those things belong on the article about impalement.
 * 3) Well, there are several contradictions, unnecessary repetitions and confusions throughout the article. In this particular case (although I'm not sure about his image in authentic folklore) I guess it has something to do with the fact that in the modern Romanian version of his myth Vlad Tepes was purposely cruel and scary in order to impose honesty, the rule of law etc. - so in this vision cruelty doesn't necessarily make him a "bad" person, it just makes him a very determined one.-Axi 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the atrocities alleged against Vlad border on the downright bizarre. There's a lot of repetitive stuff on forcing gypsies to eat each other etc. Maybe it would just be best to list these alleged atrocities and then leave it to the readers to make their own minds up on how plausible they are and what the best methods are to impale people etc. Colin4C 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't argue with just taking out most of the unverifiable bizarre-legend bits--I guess we could move some of them to a section on Vlad as a legendary figure?--but whatever we do, that section needs lots of cleaning up, to get rid of the aforementioned repetitiveness as well as the torture porn. I always thought he just impaled them through their stomachs like on the famous woodcut, incidentally, the anus thing came as a rather unpleasant surprise. K. Lásztocska 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think 'Vlad the Legend' is as important as what it was he actually did or didn't do in reality. There is some German document which lists Vlad's atrocities in bullet point style. If I have the time and energy I'll see if I can get hold of a transcription. Interesting parallel with the contemporary English King Richard III whose black legend is arguably more important than the reality...whatever that was...Colin4C 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * M.J. Trow in his book on the Impaler mentions 32 'tales of terror' about Vlad compiled at the German monastery of St Gallen in the 15th century. Those of nervous disposition look away now:
 * In tale 'twenty nine, 300 gypsies were forced to "eat the others until there are none left". In tale thirty-one Vlad "had very young children roasted and forced their mothers to eat them. He cut the breasts off women and forced their husbands to eat them; after that", the tale continues with a certain inevitability, "he had them impaled"' (M.J. Trow (2003) Vlad the Impaler page 100) Colin4C 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should have something significant about his myth, maybe in two sections : in Romania (how he got to be known as a wise, incorruptible leader: out of Romantic nationalism and so on) and internationally (how he got to be known as a blood-thirsty tyrant: by contamination from fiction etc.).

On that other issue, as there are so many tales, I guess they should be presented and analyzed in a separate article. -Axi 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am working on such a subject, but I'm not sure when it will be finished. I have at least 6 sources at hand that I need to look into (possibly up to ten). The subject will not deal with his abuse, but it will cover it. Two points that I want to make: Not all Romanians view Dracula as a good guy. Some do, but not all. Iorga and other of our great historians were critical of his behaviour. Iorga called him a "bad man." There is no doubt that he abused people, but there is a controversary as to the extent of the abuse and the reasons for it. To make it short, in Western Euro he was seen in one way; in Central Europe in another way; and in Southeast Europe in a different way. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically He was a real person. He impaled people. The people in transelvania put him to death. Like 10 years later they found him. His body didn't decompose so he had flesh still and that's the reason he's called the living dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.130.125 (talk • contribs)


 * I think the Catholics vs Eastern Orthodox aspect of the story is as important as Vlad vs Moslems. The Catholics of Transylvania and Eastern Orthodox of Wallachia hated each other as much as or more than they hated the Moslem Turks. The Eastern Orthodox Church were regarded as terrible heretics by the Catholic West, not as part of a grand Christian coalition. Colin4C 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us not exagerate things. In the 1429, the Poles defended the Orthodox faith of the Moldavians against the claims of Hungary. Pope Sixtus II awarded Athleta Cristi to Stephen the Great of Moldavia, who was Orthodox. The two churches actually reunited, if only on paper. The hatred between the two churches may have reached its climax during the Latin occupation of Constantinople, but Ottoman expansion forged Christian unity. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that...what facts make you think the Orthodox in Wallachia and the Catholics in Transylvania hated each other that much ? At most, maybe the Catholics and Orthodox in Transylvania had some issues. -Axi 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the schism of the 11th century the Eastern Orthodox church were regarded as heretics by the Catholic church. So much so that the Fourth Crusade was diverted from attacking the Moslems and instead attacked the Orthodox capital Constantinople and subjected it to one of the most prolonged lootings in history. In the late 20th century religious discord between Catholic and Orthodox led to the break up of Yugoslavia. This religious divide is a long standing issue in the Balkans. Vlad was a very religious man in the Orthodox tradition, endowing lots of churches and monasteries in Wallachia. His attacks on the Saxon Catholics of Transylvania were probably religiously motivated as much as motivated by ethnic or other considerations. I get this info from the book on Vlad by M.J. Trow. And from the wikipedia:

The Crusades against the Eastern Orthodox

The final breach between East and West is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Crusades against Christians in the East by Roman Catholic crusaders was not exclusive to this crusade nor the Mediterranean. The sacking of Constantinople and the Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople and also throughout West Asia Minor and Greece (see the Kingdom of Thessalonica, Kingdom of Cyprus) are considered definitive though. This is in light of perceived Roman Catholic atrocities not exclusive to the capital city of Constantinople in 1204. The establishment of the Latin Empire in 1204 was intended to supplant the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. Symbolized by many Orthodox churches being converted into Roman Catholic properties like Hagia Sophia and Church of the Pantokrator (Constantinople). It is viewed with some rancor to the present day. Some of the European Christian community activily endorsed the attacking of Eastern Christians.[32]

The Teutonic Order's attempts to conquer Orthodox Russia (particularly the Republics of Pskov and Novgorod), an enterprise endorsed by Pope Gregory IX,[33] can also be considered as a part of the Northern Crusades. One of the major blows for the idea of the conquest of Russia was the Battle of the Ice in 1242. With or without the Pope's blessing, Sweden also undertook several crusades against Orthodox Novgorod. Many in the East saw the actions of the West in the Mediterranean as a prime determining factor in the weakening of Byzantium which led to the Empire's eventual conquest and fall to Islam.[34] Another though minor point of contention (primarily with the Serbs) is the looting of the Serbian country side during the People's Crusade and also the establishment of the Empire of Trebizond in the Ukraine by the Fourth Crusade. Some Eastern Orthodox see a continuation of Roman Catholic hostility in the establishment of the Uniate or Eastern Catholic churches (see the sainting of Bissarion in 1950). [35]

In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204; the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Many things that were stolen during this time: holy relics, riches, and many other items, are still held in various Western European cities, particularly Venice. Colin4C 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the 19th century Crimean War originated as a conflict between Catholic and Orthodox which the Moslem Turks unwillingly got dragged into. Colin4C 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In Vlad's time, that was not as much of a problem and it especially wasn't for the Romanian Orthodox Church. The myth of his supposed dispute with "the Hungarians" or "the Catholics" is based his briefly being imprisoned by King Matthias for political reasons, a decision which was extremely unpopular in Hungary and much of Catholic Europe and which did not last that long anyway. That myth comes from the Ceausescu era, when in fact Dracula believed Catholics and Orthodox, Magyars and Vlachs were on the same side against the Ottoman onslaught. 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Woodcut versus Portraits
I was just looking at a website that referenced Vlad III, shown below:  Only now do I notice differences between Vlad in the wood cut and in his portraits. Most obviously in the woodcut he has a beard and short hair (or at least it seems short to me). Has anyone else ever noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.239.203 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its highly unuasual to change ones hair cut or beard style.. I can think of one human........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.58.44 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-Morten Moniker?
His post-mortem moniker of Ţepeş (Impaler) originated in his preferred method for executing his opponents, impalement — as popularized by medieval Transylvanian pamphlets. -- Names section
 * A moniker is defined as "a pseudonym, or cognomen, which one gives to oneself.  The meaning is distinct from nickname, in that a nickname is generally given to one by another, and not chosen for oneself." Post-mortem means occurring after death, so I'm just wondering... How can one give oneself a name after one is already dead? ~ WindOwl 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation?!
Have I missed something out?

It seems that part of the article is an exact copy of this text, which was strangely even noted when inserting the text (!) on 2 October 2005. Funny enough, someone later noted that references were missing (9 September 2006!), but apparently again didn't check for a simple copyright violation. Then an IP hereby removed the request for references (and the NPOV tag) on 17 July 2007... and now "everything's fine"?

Please let me in if I've missed out on something, else this text should be deleted as soon as possible. --Ibn Battuta 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

True.

“The Historical Dracula, by Ray Porter, 1992”webbside copyriht Ray Porter, 1992, - is almost the same text like the one on Vikipedia. The article has been modified here and there of course, but is basically the same.

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*.

Well, I dont know what to say.

Warrington (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SICK?
I guess his behaviours were just pathetic.Is there any evidence that he was a "Psychotic". I would refer him as the devil in person. 80.80.175.66 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual for heads of state to have people executed, especially during this time period, and it's not evidence of mental illness. Additionally, it's not even clear what exactly he actually did and did not do. Amillion (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say psychotic, his behaviour was about right for warlords at that time. Around that time the english had the rack and iron maiden ... Vlad impaled people, it was what was done Artemka (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The turks learned him to impale??
If this article is true then the turks self created him It explains in fact very well why he used these hard punishments. His hatred against the turks is also very understandable. He is an complex character,because beside his alleged cruelty,he obviously was intelligent and innovative.His bravery has been fueled by the hate aginst the ,also very cruel,turkish invaders.

Well, it is important to keep in mind that he also learned everything concerning the Ottoman military and stradegies. He taught many guerilla tactics, military training etc. I don´t think his campaigns would have resulted succesfully if it weren´t for the Turks astounishing competence concerning the military and tactics.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

scalping in turks
as a barbarian bloodthirsty turk, I have never heard the method of scalping in ottoman empire as a torture. We eat babies alive, but have no tradition of scalping. I assume this is something about writer's personal effort in creating connection between native american tribes and turks in terms of barbarism and inhumanity.

regards, serhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.214.244 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

its been my experiance, that your own govy dont teach bad stuffy about your own govy to you for free. thats my song of the day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.58.44 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit this article does seem very anti-Turkish/Ottoman. They're pretty much portrayed as the purveyors of all that is wrong and Vlad is some Christian guy defending his kingdom any way he can.

I particularly liked the part at the end where the superstitions of the Vampire are insinuated to have been kept because the "Turkish yoke" had only recently shed, as in implying all those living in Ottoman kingdoms were backward and more prone to superstition. The fact that vampire superstition, of blood suckers, has existed for a very long time, all around the world shouldn't put you off this little piece of POV hate filled rhetoric, but hey whatever.

Carry on with the hate on the Turks and Ottomans, Vlad was only a nice guy defending his territory from those evil usurpers Turks. I mean how can a Christian cause such brutality, they're all pious and God fearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following ultra-stupid and ultra-contradictory sentences from the article: "The events of Vlad's life were played out in a region of the world that was still basically medieval even in Stoker's time. The Balkans had only recently shaken off the Turkish yoke when Stoker started working on his novel and ancient superstitions were still prevalent. Transylvania had long been a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it had also been an Ottoman vassal (although it never fell under Turkish domination, and was in fact semi-independent and at times under Habsburg influence)."...Well, well, well... If the region has never actually been under Turkish domination, how then could such a place have been basically medieval with prevalent superstitions due to Turkish yoke? Btw, as another barbaric bloodthirsty Turk, I must admit that serhat is right, babies are delicious when eaten alive :P --Etchgow (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence
This article could possible be better as "The German and Russian stories about Vlad Dracula". I could rewrite it if it is ok with everybody here, as it seems to be quite un-informative and I wouldn't call it "evidence" as such because it is clearly at least partly politically inspired propaganda, the German stories I mean.Laurukainen (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not rewrite it but make it a little bit better.Laurukainen (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would like to fuse the articles Atrocities and Anecdotal evidence because in essence they are the same, or at least deal with the same subjects. I would like to change them in to an article about the Alleged atrocities and articles about the German stories (manuscripts, pamphlets, poems) and about the Russian stories. Now they are quite confusing with very little accurate information. I hope that this is ok with you. I will try to write them next week. Laurukainen (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nitin is a scum of a person"
"Nitin is a scum of a person"

please edit that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.23.250 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates?
What are the sources for his birth and death dates?--Meraculas (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering the same thing. I hav´t found any source for this in literature. The first written document mentioning Vlad is from 1437. As far as I have read even the year of his birth is somewhat disputed. He was probably born sometime between 1429 and 1431. As far as his death, according to documents it happened sometime between the 4th of December 1476 and the 10th of January 1477. If there are no sources for his date of birth and death they should be removed.Laurukainen (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I made my comment I was talking about the specific date that he was born and died (I had no clue that the years where somewhat disputed). I knew that the month he had been born was disputed (it being either November or December of 1431) and that he died in December of 1476. Knowing that I figured that the specific dates of her birth and death (November 8 for birth and December 14 for his death) had been made up. If those really were the dates of those events (and someone had finally learned that to be true) I would like a source. --Meraculas (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The biography "Dracula: Prince of Many Faces" by Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally states that Vlad was born in 1431 under the sign of Sagittarius, making his birth month either November or (more likely) December. Incidentally, November 8 was Bram Stoker's birthdate.Tathunen (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)