Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes i'm referring to a Rumanian leader who was feared and formed a basis of vampire horrors.

but i believe that the myth that the actual 'dracula' is a supervillain sprung up by the Victorian era. right?
And as i've talked to a rumanian before (it was 7 years ago!) that individual referred 'Dracula' as a patriot leader rather than a vampire tyrant as the world (or at least anglophonic worlds) believe he is. I don't understand why the writer interpret his patriotism as a villanity? as a rumanian said that his "horrors" scared all known invaders by that time, especially Ottomans.

1. Does balkan politics really revolves around the writings of the 'Dracula' novel? Does the brits has any interests in Rumania and wrote the whole histry in favor of imperial ottomans? aka. DOES it has anything to do with Crimean Wars?
2. IF the brits and americans call him 'vampire tyrant'. What do the other contemporary european nations (and factions) view him? for Ottomans (and later turks) Dracula was either Devil himself, or one of his top guns on earth.
- Russians (none of them fond of turks i think, they always fight war against each other for centuries to wrest control over balkans)
- Greeks (by then Greeks hates Turks, remember that turkish master requires many many greek beauties to fill their harems, by then I believe that Greeks view themself as the sublime civilized people and saw turks as low life barbarian heretics, never they recognize Islam as a religion by its rights rather than viewed it as 'breakaway Christianity')
- French
- Austria
- any other balkan nations belonged to Austria empire
- Italian Nationalist
- some lesser italian states.
- Spain
- Portugal
- Prussia (especially Otto von Bismarc himself)
- Other german states
- Irish
- Dutch
- Papal States.
3. And what about you! do you think that Dracula is a vampire terrorist? or do you believe that he's a desperate patriot who needs every means and methodology to save his people. even if it means to kill some of his own and to do anythinn forbade by the moral standard of warfare.

I don't think anyone in the West is confusing the historical Vlad Dracula with Bram Stoker's character based in part on him. Or at any rate, that it impacts our historical views of Romania. Where are you getting the idea that Bram Stoker thought he was a villain in real life? AFAIK he just picked a famously bloody and brutal historical figure on whom to model his vampire charaxter.

In real life he was a brutal leader, who was respected locally as a strong bulwark against the hated Turks.

As far as I know Dracula was the family name of Vlad the impaler who bears no resemblance to the fictional Dracula other than they are both from eastern europe.

Vlad the impaler himself wasn't terribly pleasant either though...

But i guess that rumanians fears that turks will enslave them. so one of rumanians viewed him as a patriot.

hey hey c,mon. Stoker lived in the Victorian era and y'know. the brits Balkan politics viewed Russian Empire and anyone who allied with them as dangerous.

Wasn't that the situations of 'between Scilla and Caribdi"? to live under a local lord who doesn't respect the human life. or to risk the uncertainty of a new superpower who seemed to be more generous to its underlings (but has a culture bound to slavery)?

i bet Stoker might have some political affilations towards his writings....

ok back to the 16th century. If you were a mercenary and about to join the wars between Turks and Rumanians. Will you accept the pay of a vampire count to save those helpless folks from the turkish slavery. or will you help the Ottomans expand its golden empire and 'bring a better life' (through the Sultan rule) to the folks of the backwater nation?

But he wasn't a vampire... The vampire thing was totally made up by stoker.

ok if he's not a vamp. what will happen if the Turks got hold over the Transylvania? will you believe that the Rumanian life will be better than being ruled over by any christian masters?

...Okay, i've tried and failed to make sense of this thread; can someone explain what's going on here?

I think we are talking about Twilight.

Go Team Edward!

DarkTraveler777 wrote:I think we are talking about Twilight.

Go Team Edward!

That would explain all the sparkles...

Lone Cat wrote:ok if he's not a vamp. what will happen if the Turks got hold over the Transylvania? will you believe that the Rumanian life will be better than being ruled over by any christian masters?

Well the Romanians hated the turks so didn't really want to be ruled by them, it's pretty simple...

and after they found out that a brit novel writer modeled his 'villain' character after their national hero.
What do rumanians think about brits? do they become hateful towards the brits too?

As far as I know vlad the impaler isn't regarded as a national hero by anyone and lived a few hundred years before stoker...

Again the only similarities between Dracula and Vlad the impaler are their last names and them both living in eastern europe, you can hardly call that "modelling" one on the other.

Lone Cat wrote:and after they found out that a brit novel writer modeled his 'villain' character after their national hero.
What do rumanians think about brits? do they become hateful towards the brits too?

I honestly don't think they care...
IIRC to aoid a Turkish invasion Vlad impaled an entire illage in the path of the appraoching army.
The invaders were so scared about this they legged it... So Vlad's subjects didn't really like him either...
Also that thing where your tenses stop working is starting to kinda weird me out again...

I believe that he did actual battles against Ottomans and impaled every POWs he got his hands on. and that supposed he won many battles against the turks.
but how can a little backwater nation survives the invasion of the highly sophisticated empire that by then, has one of the best armies in the world (and the Imperial Ottoman forces outnumbered what Vlad Dracula had on hands).
I think he was so desperate so he believed that 'terror' is the only weapon.
but does he really fights and won any battles against Iimperial ottomans and did pierce those POWs too?

Lone Cat wrote:I believe that he did actual battles against Ottomans and impaled every POWs he got his hands on. and that supposed he won many battles against the turks.
but how can a little backwater nation survives the invasion of the highly sophisticated empire that by then, has one of the best armies in the world (and the Imperial Ottoman forces outnumbered what Vlad Dracula had on hands).
I think he was so desperate so he believed that 'terror' is the only weapon.
but does he really fights and won any battles against Iimperial ottomans and did pierce those POWs too?

Yeah...
It wasn't that he believed it was the 'only' way but he was a bit weird (used to eat dinner whilst watching people get slowly impaled) and then used terror as a weapon since his lads were already doomed... worked though.

And does he appear in any Rumanian political propagandas either when the Empire of Austria was about to crumble. by the day of second world war? and any cold-war era propaganda posters?

No... because he was just a weirdo from a few hundred years ago.

Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (1431–1476), also known by his patronymic name Dracula (son of the Dragon (Vlad II) Dracul), and posthumously dubbed Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș pronounced [ˈvlad ˈt͡sepeʃ]) [ Tsepesh ], was a three-time Voivode (lord/ruler) of Wallachia, ruling mainly from 1456 to 1462, the period of the incipient Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. His father was a member of the Order of the Dragon (Dracul) which was founded to protect Christianity in Europe. Dracula means son of the Dragon to indicate his father's title within the Order of the Dragon.

So neither Dracula nor Tepes is his "surname" or family name. As a voivode, he didn't need one (YOUR subjects should know who their ruler is).

His Grandfather, was also a Vlad (it wasn't an uncommon name back then for 'kings') - Vlad I.

purplefood wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:and after they found out that a brit novel writer modeled his 'villain' character after their national hero.
What do rumanians think about brits? do they become hateful towards the brits too?

I honestly don't think they care...
IIRC to aoid a Turkish invasion Vlad impaled an entire illage in the path of the appraoching army.
The invaders were so scared about this they legged it... So Vlad's subjects didn't really like him either...
Also that thing where your tenses stop working is starting to kinda weird me out again...

I heard that one too. The Turks figured if this guy would do that to his own people, what he would do to them would be far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Cat wrote:I believe that he did actual battles against Ottomans and impaled every POWs he got his hands on. and that supposed he won many battles against the turks.
but how can a little backwater nation survives the invasion of the highly sophisticated empire that by then, has one of the best armies in the world (and the Imperial Ottoman forces outnumbered what Vlad Dracula had on hands).
I think he was so desperate so he believed that 'terror' is the only weapon.
but does he really fights and won any battles against Iimperial ottomans and did pierce those POWs too?

Little back water nations defeating superpowers has happened time and again in history.

corpsesarefun wrote:As far as I know vlad the impaler isn't regarded as a national hero by anyone and lived a few hundred years before stoker...

Again the only similarities between Dracula and Vlad the impaler are their last names and them both living in eastern europe, you can hardly call that "modelling" one on the other.

Why would you bother contradicting people without yourself doing even internet research?

wikipedia wrote:Stoker came across the name Dracula in his reading on Romanian history and chose this to replace the name (Count Wampyr) that he had originally intended to use for his villain. However, some Dracula scholars, led by Elizabeth Miller, have questioned the depth of this connection.[10] They argue that Stoker in fact knew little of the historic Vlad III except for his name. There are sections in the novel where Dracula refers to his own background, and these speeches show that Stoker had some knowledge of Romanian history but probably one of no great depth. Stoker includes few details about Vlad III save for referring to Dracula as "that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turks", a quote which ties Stoker's Vampire to the Wallachian prince in earnest, due to Prince Vlad's famed battles with Turks over Wallachian soil. However, while Vlad III was an ethnic Vlach, the fictional Dracula claims to be a Székely.[11]