Talk:Vlad III the Impaler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vlad III the Impaler article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Vlad III the Impaler has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Vlad III the Impaler as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Romanian language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (May 2004 to Aug 2006)

Archive 2 (Jan 2006 to Jan 2007)


Contents

[edit] Stoker

Stoker did not base Dracula on Vlad the Impaler. This is a myth that Anthony Ambrogio thoroughly debunked using Stoker's texts and manuscripts in an early issue of Video Watchdog (#19). Stoker traced Dracula's lineage through Hungary, and Transylvania had always been part of Hungary until after World War I. The idea that Stoker "based" Dracula on Vlad the Impaler is a hoax, although Vlad may have had some influence on the character. Indeed, Vlad never ruled Transylvania. The fact that Transylvania is part of Romania in the present-day is irrelevant to the concept. His article demonstrated the poor and biased researched methods McNally and Florescu used to make this assertion.--Scottandrewhutchins 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that Transylvania was never part of Romania intill World War I. It is a well known fact that Transylvania was historically one of the three main Romanian Principalities during the middle ages. Further more Vlad Tepes did rule this area intill he was betrayed and crushed by the Hungarians from one side and the Ottoman Turks from the other. They feared he had become too powerful.

Do you call this a historical fact? Transylvania was not one of the three Romanian Principalities ever before WW1. It belonged to Hungary before and after the Ottoman wars. (From 896 till 1918.) During the Ottoman wars it was a semi-independent client state ruled by Hungarian nobles and paying tribute to the Ottoman Empire. The three ruling entities forming the "Transylvanian nation" were the Saxons, the Székelys (Seculis) and the Hungarian nobles. You shouldn't see these as modern nationalities though. Especially the "Hungarian nobles" group. The original nationalities of nobles were not important.

And Vlad Tepes did not rule Transylvania as it was a part of the Hungarian Kingdom ruled by Matthias. (Vlad was Matthias' vassal and not the other way around.:)) The voivod (vajda) of Transylvania was Stephan Bathory at that time afaik.

So can you prove your statement that Transylvania was a Romanian principality during the middle ages? Any sources? (Mihail Vitezaul was the ruler of Transylvania for one year around 1600. That's all.)

Vlad Tepes was the ruler of transylvania if you were to do a little more research you would have already known this. He did not rule for long because of the constant threat from the Turks and Hungarians the reason for his cruelty was to try to keep order during this chaotic time were the Turks were attacking left and right and he was being threatened by his own people betraying him. He was betrayed by his own people to the turks. Anyone who says Hungary ruled this piece of land before WWI I strongly urge you to read any historical encyclopedia and see that this land can be traced back to the dacians that are ancestors of present day romanians you will also see that Transylvania is one of the three romanian principalities and that vlad tepes ruled this land. Also Corvinus is believed to be of romanian parents this is still however disputed.

This is re-DYKE-ulous. Of COURSE Stoker modeled Dracula after Tepes. Vlad "Dracul," ruled Transylvania, lived in a friggin castle, put people on stakes, rumors of unmatched cruelty etc. etc.. If not Tepes, tell me brah, which OTHER person of Transylvanian royalty with the name Dracul and a penchant for blood-soaked extracurricular activity DID Stoker model Dracula after?? Unbelievable...

No Kidding, if this was anymore painfully obvious you would need an Ibuprophen. The reference isn't anyone's myth. It's generally accepted common sense. It doesn't take a research degree to draw the conclusion that A Character named dracula who live in or near Transylvania in a castle was based on a guy Named dracula who lived in or near transylvania in a castle. Sorry, but their is good editing, and then their is arguing for the sake of sounding smart. Stop insulting your own intelligence .

Then I'm sure you have evidence of this? Corvus cornix 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who says Stoker's Dracula was modelled on anyone?

Elizabeth Báthory. Have a Hungarian noble who lived in a castle, drank (and bathed) in blood and was related to the vajda of Transylvania. Remember also that Count Dracula is a Székely (who may or may not be tantamount to Transylvanian Hungarians), as opposed to Tepes, who was not.

I would like to remove the text "It is unclear why Bram Stoker chose this Wallachian prince as the model for his fictional vampire. Stoker was a friend of a Hungarian professor (Arminius Vambery/Hermann Vamberger) from Budapest, and many have suggested that Vlad's name might have been mentioned by this friend." from the "The vampire legend and Romanian attitudes". It is quite clear that Stoker found the name Dracula from Wm Wilkinson's book "Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia". It is also quite clear that Stoker did not choose Vlad as a model for Dracula but just took the name from that book. He had already moved the location in his book from Styria to Transilvania before he found the name Dracula. Laurukainen (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  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).

Axi 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  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. Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The vampire legend and Romanian attitudes

I have added the [citation needed] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 perfectly right 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:
  1. get an introductory paragraph that explicitly points out the propaganda character of the section,
  2. sort out facts from reputations and propaganda,
  3. 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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) 14:49, June 17, 2007 (UTC).

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) 15:06, June 17, 2007.
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) 13:41, June 18, 2007 (UTC).
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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Small Edit

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

[edit] 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.Shield2 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged" atrocities?

A couple of things:

  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....

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)

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:
Dinner with Vlad.
Dinner with Vlad.

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.Shield2 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woodcut versus Portraits

I was just looking at a website that referenced Vlad III, shown below: [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)



[edit] 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)

[edit] The turks learned him to impale??

If this article is true then the turks self created him [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Princess Cneajna

I have searched the internet over, and I cannot find a pronunciation of Vlad's mother's name. Can anyone tell me? Tathunen (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The grave at the church??

However, Romanian historian and Vlad biographer Matei Cazacu suggests in a 2005 British documentary on Vlad's life (David Paradine Productions Ltd) that the Turks removed the scalp of their victims' heads rather than behead them. Vlad's remains were discovered buried at the entrance of a church by a grand-father of Radu Florescu.
^ Would somebody please explain that? It states that Vlad III's grave has been FOUND. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a little misguiding. There were archeological excavations in Snagov in 1933 where a grave and a body were found. But there is no way to prove that the body was actually Vlad's body. Laurukainen (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vladslav

was he a slav, since in the pic wrights VLADSLAV ?? and can you tell me about the origin of romanians? thanks... Illyrium —Preceding comment was added at 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary Warriors? Video Game

I just want to know what is the Legendary Warriors video game mentioned in popular culture section. I can't find any game by that name, either already published or in the works. Can someone tell me what game and/or the company making it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.171.106 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary Plate Picture

Under the Biography section, there's a picture of a plate honoring the place where Vlad was allegedly born. It's in a different language (i'm assuming Romanian). If I could translate it, would that be a good thing to add? A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of "Draculea" and "Kazikli Bey"?

Does anyone know the correct pronunciation of these names? If so, please add guide. SpectrumDT (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think Drâculea is drəkulæ or Template:Drəkuʎa. Kazıklı already has the guide in the text; bey is bej BalkanFever 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)