Talk:Vlad the Impaler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Early comments

"Vlad was one mean, nasty-ruthless son-of-a-bitch that ever walked on this earth."

This is hardly NPOV, there are other less crude ways to express similar sentiments. Removed.

How bout, "Radon is interesting because it's both noble and deadly, like Vlad the Impaler."? Eh, eh?

Since the page was axed do to Copyright infringments, I figured I would add a bit of public domain information to the discussion page, as a kind of place-holder.

His name was Vlad Tepes, and was known as Vlad III of Wallachia; Vlad Dracula; and Vlad the Impaler. Dracula meaning son of the dragon, for his father earned the gentry right of the dragon (Dracul.) The Impaler monicker being earned by his propensity for execution by impaling, used against his political enemies, and most notably the bourgeoisie. He was known to be quite bloodthirsty (although mostly in the metaphorical way,) and is thought to be the character archetype used by Bram Stoker in his best known novel, Dracula, when combined with prevalent Vampire myths. During his reign, Wallachia was positioned between the Christians to the west an the Ottoman Muslim's to the East, both bent on destroying one-another. He allied (a very loose alliance,) with the Christians to the west, but was eventually incarcerated by them. He was later released, typically believed because although he was an unstable, blood thirsty tyrant, he was on their side and therefore would provide a buffer against the Muslims.

You have your facts and opinions messed up buddy. Please get it straight, first off Dracul means devil not dragon (check in any Romanian Dictionary if still not satisfied do researchn on the word and you will see that I am correct). Second, Transylvania at that time was CHRISTIAN they did not make an alliance with "The christians to the West" they were Christians. He was incarcerated by your so called Christians also known as Hungrians because they feared he was getting too powerful. Vlad had no allies he was stuck inbetween to countries that were both set on getting Transylvania one way or another. Lasty you don't know what your talking about when you say that Vlad Tepes was a blood thirsty tyrant. This was how he was potrayed by the Turks because he did away with them by impaling them in steaks this was a way to make them back off not because he was bloodthirsty. Vlad simple had the moto an eye for an eye which is a very just way of handling things at that time. Finally I would like to say that the legend of Dracula was really inspired by a baroness in Hungry that lived around Vlad's time that killed more then 600 of her own servants in order to drink and bath in there blood because she thought this was the secret to immortality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.61.182 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006.

Im afraid you have it messed up."Dracul" means Dragon and it would be severly ilogical if "Dracula" would mean Devil. New Babylon (22 Aug 2006)

Okay if you don't believe me look it up in a dictionary. I speak fluent romanian, english, french, and spanish. Romananian being my first language. I am 100% sure "dracul" or "drac" in Romanian is literally translated to english as devil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.61.182 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2006.

I don't think anyone (or at least anyone who knows Romanian) disputes that when a Romanian today says "Dracul" or Dracu' they mean "Devil". However, in the relevant period there really was an Order of the Dragon, and in Romanian the relevant word for "dragon" was Dracul. I believe it comes from the German Drahe, but I wouldn't stake too much on that, so to speak. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand slightly corrected by Anittas. The order was of Serbian origin, but revived/refreshed by Sigismund. Dracul is apparently straight from the Latin Draco, not by way of the German Drahe. - Jmabel | Talk 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dracul means dragon. Words change over time both gaining and losing meaning. A current example of this would be the slang of "Bad" meaning "Good". So having historical terms based on modern dictionaries holds little ground. Verwirrung 10:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

---

PS This article is awesome and you guys are weenies.Nutmilk 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Was he known as Tepes during his reign? The introduction says no, but later this is contradicted.

- When was the page "axed"?

Vlad III

I believe it was Vlad IV who was refered to as Dracula.

It's certainly Vlad III. See List of Wallachian rulers:

• Vlad I: 1394-1397
• Vlad II: 1436-1442 (Vlad III's father; Dracul)
• Vlad III: 1456-1462 (Dracula)

And Dracul means Devil, not dragon, Dracula is the son of the Devil, not at all the son of the dragon.

Yes, but dragon used to be assimilated to the devil. In fact, the Romanian word "drac" (devil) is derived from Latin "draco" (dragon). Bogdan | Talk 08:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Bogdan, why don't you go to the Museum of Romanian History on Calea Victoriei to see for yourself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.29.194 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2006.

In this context, it definitely means Dragon. His father was named Vlad Dracul, Dracul being an honorific he received once he was inducted into the Order of the Dragon. Dracula, in this connection, means "Son of (the) Dragon"; and is also said "Draculea". Check the Order article if you don't believe me. Tias 08:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

He was never refered to as "Dracula" until Bram Stoker's novel appeared. You're confusing fact with fiction.

[Bogdan, why don't you go to see the Museum of Romanian History on Calea Victoriei in Bucharest Romania in order to see with your own eyes documents signed by Vlad Tepes with the name "Dracula" or "Draculea"?? Before publishing anything you need to be informed!!I saw them 16 years ago, before leaving the country! Anton Constantinescu] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.29.194 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2006.

Sure he was. You can find the spelling "Dracula" on two paintings from c. 1600. Arround 1460 Pope Pius II refered to "Dragula". - By the way, who could tell me an early source for the spelling "Draculea". How old is that? --R.wien 10:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes he signed his name as Dracula, and sometimes as Draculea. The -lea suffix that ends in names stands for "al lui", meaning, "as of", meaning, the son of -- the son of Dracul. --Anittas 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• why dont you guys just put a note in the article that mentions the possibility or even the 'controversy' that it may mean devil instead of dragon? its a worthy note for curious readers. ArgentiumOutlaw 2:02, 11 December 2005

Problem, mate...there is no controversy. Dracula means 'Son of the Dragon.' Jachra 10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

there has to be an expert study on the etymology of his romanian "nickname" Draculea, i believe Dracula comes from Draculea. i read Draculesti was a name for the family 'clan', similar to other Dragnea, Dragan, Dragoi, Dragulescu (plural: Dragulesti) family names that are found today in ROmania Criztu 14:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As i said before I am 100% sure "dracul" in romanian means devil and "dracula" there for is son of the devil. If you are not convinced look it up in a romanian dictionary.

• In fact Draculea in the medieval Romanian meant indeed "son of...Dracu". It was a pure coincidence that the order name his father was decorated with was "The order of the dragon" and it matched so well the character of the prince, the Romanian pronounciation for devil (dracu) and for the order. The popular pronounciation of the word dragon was also "dracu": the process of switching from an unknown word (in Romanian) to a known one is quite common even today. I heart many peasants in Romania pronouncing "Harciog" instead of Hrusciov in recent times!! The closest Romanian word to "dragon" was obviously "dracu". There is no controversy here between historians that initially the meaning of this name was the order of the dragon. No prince in his minds would have called himself the Devil!!

At his time it was customary in Romanian to use Mamulea, Tatulea, Draculea, for "the son of...". The only relique preserved in Romanian from that time is the quarter "Mamulari" in Bucharest, and similar constructions in the gipsy language. Anton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.29.194 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2006.

For anyone wondering who "Hrusciov" might be, in English we call him "Khrushchev". The Cyrillic original is "Хрущёв" - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted text

I pasted some text from Michael Currie's essay "Vlad: Bad Lad or Mad Dad" with permission. I emailed him with the question: "Text in Wikipedia is licensed under the GDFL [...] Would you be willing to release your text under these conditions?" He replied: "Yes I allow the release. Feel free to use it without crediting me." --Redquark 03:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Defamatory paragraphs

When foreign emissaries refused, out of custom, to remove their hats in his presence, he told them that he wished only to strengthen and honour their custom - then nailed their hats to their heads. When he imposed this cruel act upon several Turkish emissaries, the sultan went to war against him.

Conversely, just as Vlad responded harshly to insult, he responded favourably to flattery. When a messenger arrived with news from neighboring Hungary, Vlad grew very angry, and invited him to dinner. Seeing the dining room filled with dead and dying people impaled on stakes, and guards behind him holding a gold-plated stake, the messenger grew very anxious. When Vlad asked him if he knew why he was asked to dinner, the messenger thought quickly and responded, "I do not know, but I know you are a wise and great ruler, and no matter what you command, even if you were to command my death, it should be done." Impressed, Vlad waved the soldiers away, and said "Had you not answered so well, I would have impaled you on the spot." The messenger was showered with gifts, before being sent back to Hungary.

please, provide sources for these paragraphs. Try to quote sources as objective as possible. These paragraphs are defamatory. Unless suported by reference to sources sustaining such defamatory formulations, i'll reformulate these paragraphs in a non defamatory /neutral way. Criztu 01:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Pedant's point: while the paragraphs may or may not be true and certainly should be sourced, they're not defamatory. You can't defame the dead (who would sue?) and nor in any case would these paragraphs have the effect of damaging the reputation of someone universally known as "the impaler" and thought to be the origin for the Dracula legend. Sorry to pointscore, but it bugs me when people misuse the "defamation" tag. ElectricRay 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Just wanted to comment that there was a couple features on the Discovery and History Channels (The Most Evil Men in History I believe was the title) which supports this claim about the turkish emissaries having their hats nailed to their head. They would have sources for their documentaries one would think? I can't be bothered to login, but anyway, hope that helps. - Pyke (April 24th, 5:00am EST, April 26th 2006)

There are sources for this cclaim on the Night Attack. --Candide, or Optimism 09:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this anecdote also appears in the book 'Murder' by Colin Wilson. - Xzamuel, 7/7/06

Also appears in the book 'The Most Evil Men and Women in History' by Miranda Twiss - JRlullo 9/10/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JRLullo (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006.

Unfinished merging

Chapters 2 The reign of Vlad III
3 The Life of Vlad III Dracula
4 Reputation

are more or less duplicate, and the merging had not been finished yet. I added a {{unencyclopedic}} template because I can not find the template I was looking for Reply to David Latapie 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hunyadi defeated?

The article says " In the Battle of Belgrade Hunyadi was killed and his army defeated."

Completely wrong. Hunyadi died because of a plague after the siege but he was completely victorious.

"The victory stopped the Ottoman Turkish advance towards Catholic Europe for 70 years ... During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the noon bell, to call believers to pray for the defenders - but as in many places the news of victory arrived later than the order, it transformed into the commemoration of the victory"

Consult article Siege_of_Belgrade.

Quite correct. I corrected the article and also removed the (completely erroneous) conclusion in the article drawn from this. (Drawing conclusions about Hunyadi's defeat without him even being defeated.. Who writes this stuff?) --BluePlatypus 23:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2nd wife

Vlad's second wife wasn't the sister of Matthius Corvinus. She was Jusztina Szilágyi de Horogszeg, who's aunt (father's sister) Erzsébet was married to János Hunyadi. They were the parents of Matthias Corvinus, who was thus her cousin. See the family trees: [1] [2] --BluePlatypus 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The reign of Vlad III

within this section, the following quote occurs: :"[Sultan Mehmed] marched on for about five kilometers when he saw men impaled; the Sultan's army came across a field of stakes, about three kilometers long and one kilometer wide. And there were large stakes upon which he could see the impaled bodies of men, women, and children, about twenty-thousand of them... And the other Turks, seeing so many people impaled, were scared out of their wits."

however, there is no attribution. should this not be either attributed, or removed? furthermore, i'm quite certain that the concept of the kilometer was not prevalent during vlad III's reign...

- I would like to know whether there are any written documents from Vlad's time, especially documents written and signed by him. Even more interesting would be the language they were written in if they were issued by Vlad's court.

-I know there are some, but I don't know where. I know that there is at least one, I think it deeded some land to some peasants. He signed his name Vlad Dracula.

Signed letters exist in Brasov, where I have seen and photographed them. The signature is a formal drawing, and not recognizable for its particular spelling, but for its design.

Vlad III and Stephen the Great

Some history books say that Vlad III and Stephen the Great and Holy of Moldavia were cousins!

They were cousins. What's your point? --Anittas 09:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people do not know that.

His Son

I don't know much about this, but there doesn't seem to be anything here about one of his sons that I read about. It may have been inaccurate information, but I believe his name was Adrian Fahrenheit or something. I believe he died young. Again, I'm just throwing it out there in case it's something we might want to look further into.

After googling for "adrian fahrenheit", I suggest you go to the Castlevania III article for more on that. This page, however, is about the actual historical figure Vlad Tepes. Not his video-game fiction relatives. --BluePlatypus 12:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE

You have added good things, but: 1.Inform yourselves about the diacritics in Romanian. Use them. 2.Link a person's name to an existing article, on its first mention. The same for localities. 3. Stop linking old names to modern ones - ie. Kingdom of Hungary to Hungary, or countries ti cities - Muscovy instead of Moscow. It shows ignorance, and you want to give a person who is not familiar with the topic an insught into the situation then (not now). 4. Link at least some years.Dahn 14:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Dracul"'s meaning

Dracul definitely means devil. The title was given to him by peasants for his unsavory way of negotiating (impaling people).

I'm not sure calling the article "Vlad III Dracula" is appropriate. It should be changed to "Vlad III Tepes". Anyone have any objections? Dali 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]

I do (I'm Romanian, by the way). I also think this back-and-forth about names is useless. Type Vlad Tepes (or the proper Vlad Ţepeş) and you get to this article. He is also cited as Ţepeş throughout the article. Dracul was not a name given to him by peasants, it was a reference to the dragon for sure. The main (since lost) meaning of the time was serpent. The peasants preferred the unofficial and grotesque Ţepeş - as the most parochial references to him show. Dracul (and this is in the article) was the name his father bore - which gives you Draculea/Dracula (archaism for "of the Drac"). Also, somebody would have to go an even longer way in Romania to be named "Dracul", if that is a reference to the devil: consider that they probably used "serpent" initially as an euphemism, so as not to mention the Fallen One out loud. Dahn 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from the book, "Dracula, prince of many faces".

"Vlad was called, 'Dracul' by the boyars, who knew of his honor, because he was a draconist, a member of the order of the dragon dedicated to fighting Turks and heretics".

He signed letters with the title Dracula, and it was in no way meant to be negative. The idea that the title meant Devil could not be further from the truth. Also, from what I've read he was quite popular with the peasants. His cruelest acts were directed against wealthy people who could threaten his power, not against peasants.

(can't be arsed to sign up... sorry) ---- Paul

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.87.141 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006.

Article length

As this article is currently 50K (recommended size is 32K), any objections to moving the Anecdotal evidence subheader (or additional sections) to a new article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olessi (talk • contribs) .

No. Mihai -^talk 01:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Dahn 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

His Infamy

Just came back from România, where I learned some things about Vlad that I didn't knew before. According to a tour guide at the Bram Castle, Vlad got the infamy of being a bad man when he crossed the king of Hungary. It seems that the Rome gave the kind of Hungary a substantial ammount of cash to fight the Turks. But the Hungarian king was very vain and pompous, and he spent most of the money with parties and hunting.

When Vlad returned form a massive fight against the Turks, he went to ask the king of Hungary (who was supposed to be his ally against the Turks) about his whereabouts whilst Vlad was on the battlefront -- which would of course, raised the question of what happened with the money sent by Rome. The Hungarian king then decided to blame Vlad, and spread horror stories about Vlad.

Bear inmind, that I am just repeating what a tour guide (a very well educated one) told me in România. --Pinnecco 21:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not an expert on the matter, but I am Romanian. Not questioning the education of the guide, this sounds a bit biased, and like modern wishful thinking. I think the article covers everything about Vlad already, including all that could possibly be said about his love-hate relationship with Matthias. The info you got has a whiff of anti-Catholicism. The guide is certainly not uneducated, but he/she could've been overeducated in the classical Romanian version. Plus, Bran stikes me as the wrong place to learn about Vlad (no disrespect intended): the Romanians have learned to exploit a cliche (with all the grotesque kitsch involved), and Vlad spent some days of his entire life in the castle. Dahn 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s interesting to know, that one of the greatest Romanian national heroes was in fact a vassal of the king of Hungary. The other national hero, Mircea the Elder, Dracula's grandfather was also a vassal of the king of Hungary. I quote:

"Io, Mircea voievod, mare domn şi stăpânitor a toată Ţara Ungro-Vlahiei..." The word "Ungro" is a clear and undeniable evidence for that. The story told by the tour guide is a pure fantasy.Zmiklos 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ungro-Vlahia has nothing to do with that, but that's beside the point. Dahn 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Zmiklos, your quote means Mircea the Elder was the ruler of the whole of Transylvania and Wallahia, because Ungro-Vlahia was the name of Transylvania, meaning "Wallahia of the Hungarians" if you wish. The only "undeniable evidence" in your reply is of your lack of documentation, knowledge of Romanian language, bias, plus an added degree of malice, which we could also find in your other contributions.

Place of birth

About the diacritic, I am well aware of it - simply didn't use it because it wasn't used elsewhere in the article. I'm interested in the uncertainty about his place of birth, but couldn't find it under early life. Maybe something needs to be added? - Adam Mathias 05:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In general I think the article has very detailed info, but could use some cleanup. But I'm no expert. Adam Mathias 05:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You were right, it's not mentioned (although all diacritics are in place). It used to be when I last reviewed the article, but they started editing it like mad ever since, writing down all sorts of bits of info that were repeated thrice - and without giving you a chance to see what they were erasing in the process (I mean, the task would have made one go insane). Somehow, it got lost. Also, I suspect that parts of the article are plagiarism. Dahn 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the diacritic was there. I was flipping around the article in different languages. Adam Mathias 06:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanian for dragon?

The article presently states this:

Wishing to assert his status, Vlad II displayed the symbol of the Order (a dragon) in all public appearances (on flags, clothing, etc.). Taking the dragon for a representation of the devil (drac in Romanian), the people of Wallachia gave Vlad II the surname Dracu (Dracul being the grammatically correct form), which he seems to have accepted and used.

Elsewhere I read that dracu meant both "devil" and "dragon" in Romanian; that's what I'd expect since dracu closely resembles Latin draco, and the correspondence between devil and dragon occurs several places in the Bible.

This idea that, so this idea that the people took the dragon to represent a devil is inconsistent with that, and sounds fishy anyway. I hardly think some noble would like his people going around calling him "The Devil". --Saforrest 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are almost 100% right, IMO. See what you think of the new version. Dahn 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Were did you get the idea that the old romanian word for serpent was "drac"? I'm romanian I've studied romanian language all 12 grades of elementary, middle and high school, I had very good teachers for that course and it's the first time I've heard or read this. In romanian the word for serpent is "şarpe" from the latin "serpens", never in romanian language has a snake been cald "drac". Also the notion that Vlad might have avoided the name Dracul because it implied a connection with a dark power, reveals the lack of knowledge of the author of the behavior of the romania people in the middle ages. While in the western countries a name or nickname like "devil" might have brought with it ostracization and maybe even a burning at the stake because it implied satanism in Wallachia and Moldavia it was no big deal to be called "Dracu". Actualy it might have been a mark of honor. We have an expresion in romanian "a fi al dracului" roughly translated as "to belong to the devil" which in english might seem that a person is a satanist but in romanian it actually has several meanings none of them related to the devil. When the expresion is aplied to a task (you say roughly that the task belongs to the devil), means that the task is very hard. When the expresion apllies to a person (exemple in english: John belongs to the devil) might mean either that John is nasty or spiteful (not evil just says mean things), or that John is very strict. In this latter sense is used usually by a person to whom John has denied something for one reason or another. I don't know exactly when the expresion appeared but if it appeared before the 15th centuary (Very probable. Romanian language has not changed that much from the middle ages) Vlad II might have welcomed it because it gave him an image of strictness in the eyes of the people, something a ruler back then desired. Vlad got the nickname "Dracul" because it was the closest romanian word that sounded like "Draco" and they had similar meanings, not because "drac" was another word for snake. And by the way the romanian word for dragon is "balaur" and the only meaning for "drac" is devil.

Keep informing yourself, anonymous IP. Dahn 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Báthory

The article links Stephen I Báthory to another Bathory that reigned in Transylvania in 16th century. It seems that there is no article about the Bathory that reigned Transylvania in the 15th century and who helped Dracula against Laiota. --Candide, or Optimism 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Major POV

From the "Alleged Atrocities" section: "The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of infernal deeds" "vicious atrocities [...] act of cruelty"

The actual facts stated in the article may be true, but this type of language is hardly NPOV. I removed some of it and I'll get to more later. This is supposed to be an encylopedia article, not a horror novel. However widespread the opinion, I don't think an encylopedia should take a stance on what is "vicious" or "cruel". Thanks. Eeblefish 13:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

___

I do agree that encyclopedia articles should use objective language whenever possible and/or applicable, but citing Wikipedia's NPOV rule here strikes me as a little absurd. Is calling impalement "cruel" and an "infernal deed" really indicative of a bias? Do we really need to be so careful not to offend those who might be "pro-impalement"?

The NPOV thing is clearly only applicable when there is at least a slight possibility of reasonable difference of opinion. Calling impalement "cruel" and "vicious" seems to me to be a statement of objective fact. Using these adjectives is not taking a stance, it's simply descriptive language, isn't it? Jaimetout 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is coaching the reader. Note: "it reads like an inventory of cruel deeds". That's Victorian crapola, a world where it is perfectly natural to tell you what to think or read (either that, or it is simply because it was written by people who have access to no post-1750-type media outlet). It is insulting to the reader's intelligence. Also, I have already stated my belief that much of this article was plagiarized: we need to get all info truly informal, and then block all bullshit contribution (and those people who have nothing to contribute except for linking the same word 145 times on the same page). Frankly, I feel like reverting to a version of mine of 4 months ago or so: it seems that NOTHING worthy has been added since then, and I had managed to rephrase most stuff in the article. Dahn 00:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to fix this article, fix it by improving the text and add sources and footnotes. Do not revert to a four-month-old version of the article. --Candide, or Optimism 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but if you make links to "Turks" (or "Ottoman Turks") besides "Ottoman Empire", and to "Hungary" instead of "Kingdom of Hungary", and make me lose my sanity going through the article, I promise I'll eat my hat. By the way, let me know when you do that, so that I can come in and correct your grammar :) Dahn 00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But, again, I'm willing to bet nothing would be lost if I do revert: there were the usual idiotic things about Dracula's "modern-day relatives", etc. and I'm willing to bet someone has reverted part of my edits and gone back to the sensationalist book (s)he is copying from. BTW, things in references now (ie: Florescu and Treptow) I wipe my ass with. Dahn 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made no substantial changes to this article, yet you want to wipe your snobbish ass with the hardwork of other people. I have Florescu's book on Dracula and I see nothing wrong with it. I just wish he would've developed more on Dracula's relation to Stephen. He uses contemporary sources to back-up his claims and he makes a realistic approach on military numbers. --Candide, or Optimism 00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good retort. You leave this article to rot in copyvio, halfwitted "info", and you tell me that I have made no contribution to this article. Btw, Anittas, it is not my job to rewrite every article I criticize (I believe I have done this 1,000 times). The quintessential snobbery of Romanian contributors id in fact when they go to every page that they feel they should have a POV about (Transylvania, the "great vivodes", origins of Romanians etc. ) and write something of provincial appeal in poor English. Let me point out this, Anittas: if you care so much about the Stephen articles, why did you let then in innanity for so long? Dahn 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My time and energy is limited. I can't work on all articles that I'm knowledgeable about. Most of my work has involved in adding content to my own Vaslui article. I also added content to the Battle of Posada and Origin of Romanians. It took me about 2 hours to add the content to the Posada article, and that article is shorter than this one and not as chaotic. If I were to try to fix this article, I would need to spend several hours everyday. The same goes for the Stephen article. If other editors would contribute with factual accuracy, then I might feel motivated, but most of the Ro editors are being pricks and work on stupid things. But this is off-topic. I still want to know why you disrecpected Florescu's book. All the reviews I've read on his book have been positive. In another book, (Mehmed the Conqueror and his time, Babinger, Franz) Florescu's book is used as a reference. His book is respected by the world of academia. Only Dahn knows better and dissed it. Why? --Candide, or Optimism 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Dahn 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn: I agree that the specific prose you cite is overly florid and a bit ridiculous, but to be clear, it's simply not what I was talking about. I specifically referred to objections at the use of words like "cruel." Impalement is cruel. There is no POV issue here.Jaimetout 18:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the word is superfluous. I mean, we all know it is. It's not like anybody's going to say: "I thought impailment was humanitarian, but I read on wikipedia that it is cruel. I can finally see why that is." Dahn 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If the word is merely superfluous, then it's not a POV problem, is it? Do you consider all adjectives to be superfluous?Jaimetout 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No. But I'm willing to bet no one would miss it if it's to go. the POV in the article is, as noted, in reference to highly "aesthetical" depictions, IMO. Dahn 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the question isn't whether that's a bias. I think "cruel" sounds okay, as it merely suggests he didn't care about the feelings of the victims, which he couldn't have. But "infernal"?? Regardless of whether it can be disputed, that is a red-flag word that tells all serious scholars to look somewhere else for serious research.

Living Dracul Family Members

Earlier I added the part of how extant members of the Dracul family hold the tradition that Vlad III's birthday is November 4th - this part was later removed and labelled as "bull" because there "are no extant members of the Dracul family." Well, I want you all to know that there are - and by marriage I am one. My wife is a Dracul descended straight from Vlad III, (I've got over 600 years of genealogical data to back that up), and I am a Dracula by marriage since I am not of the blood. The Dracul/Dracula sobriquet has become more of a title now instead of a family name due to the persecution of Vlad's heirs that led to their fleeing Wallachia and becoming wandering Gypsies. During this time they refrained from using their names among anyone not of the clan, and it slowly changed to a title...but I elaborate too far. The point is that there ARE living members of the Dracul family and when I make an edit, it is coming from someone who is of that family. In short, when I post something I either know it to be true, or when it is a traditional belief of the family, I will say so as I did with the birthdate. Thank you for your time, Astentyde.

If you were family with Dracula, then you should've known that they were not Gypsies and that they did not "wander". Anyway, regardless of who you are, we have the right to ask for sources. --Candide, or Optimism 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a genealogist who claimed a couple of years ago that G.W. Bush is a descendant of some second-cousin of Vlad III. But that's not a big deal, probably much of the European royalty are related to them. Just think about it: if 14 generations passed since then, you have 16,384 great-(...)-grandfathers. And since the European royalty used to marry their own kind, the chances increase. bogdan 14:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See a family tree here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Jaelin21012/DraculFamilyTree.gif The branch that I have married into branches off from Irina the Gypsy, wife of Vlad IIIs grandson Petru. In the family is a record of the birth and death of every member of that branch of the family since the time of "the honorable Vlad Tepes Dracul". The Dracul family was persecuted after the final fall of the Draculs from power, and many became wanderers to avoid being put to death by the church.

That image was taken from another site and proves nothing of your origin. I can claim to hail from Hannibal, but proving it would be another thing. Still, even if you were married to a Dracul, wouldn't make you a Dracul yourself. And may I see a source to your claim that the Draculesti family was persecuted and "became wanderers"? --Candide, or Optimism 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're descended from Hannibal, too? Small world! You should come to the reunion. We hold it on Saint Peter's Square outside the Vatican and parade with elephants. Every few minutes. Tooootally. ;D (Yes, I'm totally mocking Mister Dracula up at the top, please do ignore me.) Jachra 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the family name is Dracul, not Dracula. Dracula is used to refer to a member of the family who has either been inducted by marriage, such as myself, or a latter member of each generation of the family, while Dracul refers to the head of the family and the firstborn of each generation within the family group.

1. You have not provided any evidence other than a chart that at most says someone is somehow related to Drac(ula), and that guy died in 1845. 2. No such evidence or any kind eould allow you to give reference to what Drac(ula) did or didn't do (especially when you disregard objective realities and you fuel your contributions with Romantic aesthetics, or the quasi-Mormon drive to baptise your supposed ancestors). 3. "The family name" is not Dracula or Dracul - he had no family name, and few ever did in his time. 4. That story about his family members being persecuted and ending up as gypsies is ludicrous - check out Vlad's brother Vlad Călugărul; the Church in Wallachia probably put about 4 people to death throughout its existence, and was obedient to whomever was in power. Dahn 17:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dracula's Grandmother

Dracula's grandmother was a Bulgarian princess, the sister of Ivan Sratzimir. The links with the lands across the Danube remain largely unexamined. I would appreciate any serious contributions. (Kaloyan)

Hopefully, this is not about him being Bulgarian or any other such notion. Frankly, I find it hard to find a Wallachian Prince without links over the Danube. If his is more significant than "he had a grandmother", please write it down. Dahn 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am vividly interested in what language Vlad spoke and wrote, not to mention the origins of his name. So far my search for documenst has been in vain. (Kaloyan)

Apart from Romanian, he knew Turkish, Latin, Italian, Old Church Slavonic (Bulgarian), and perhaps some Hungarian and French. He wrote some of his letters in Latin. The letter that tried to impersonate Vlad, and which made Matthias use it as an excuse to imprison him, was written in poor Latin. --Candide, or Optimism 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If he could write, he wrote Slavonic (which is what all Romanians did back then). I don't see the point of this query. Dahn 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As to the origins of his name (I assume you refer to "Vlad"), well, Romanians are Orthodox, which has made Slavic-origin names extremely common in Wallachia and Romania at large.

"Establishing" an ethnicity either way is risque when you talk of the Middle Ages. However, ruling Wallachia should make one Wallachian (in terms of "citizenship" back then, it should even make one "the only real Wallachian" - since domenial rights of the Byzanthine tradition make the Prince "owner" and the subjects "owned"). Plus: even by textbook standards, ethnicity did not really become an issue in the area we share until people infused with Herderisms started setting the tone in the 19th century. Read Maria Todorova's Imagining the Balkans, to see why we're having this conversation in these contrived terms to begin with. Dahn 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, If he wrote Slavonic then he could speak Slavonic ... So not Hungarian, not Cuman, not any other Turkic language but a northern Slavonic dialect, whether or not mixed with some Latin vocab. His name tells us the same story.

See my reply above. He could speak several languages, including Bulgarian. I don't understand what you're trying to prove, apart that he got the same kind of education as his father, Dracul. --Candide, or Optimism 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So Romanians were Orthodox :) Why didn't they take on Greek names instead then? Why Bulgaro-Slavic?

Some Romanians did take on Greek names. Others took on Bulgarian names. Others took Polish names, and others took Romanian names. --Candide, or Optimism 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that establishing an ethinicity in the Middle Ages is a slippery ground. What on earth then makes Vlad "Romanian"? Why not state the obvious, that some of the territories North of the Danube and especially what we today call Wallachia, were part of both Bulgarian Empires and their cultural and aristocratic diaspora?

If it were up to me, you could have this evil person, but the fact is that he was a Wallachian. His grandmother was Bulgarian, while his mother was Moldavian. He had Moldavian and Wallachian roots, and some Bulgarian roots. I see nothing strange in this. All people of royal blood intermixed with other nationalities. --Candide, or Optimism 08:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with that. My personal observation has been that for many centuries the Wallachian nobles have been a part of the Bulgarian nobility and the people that lived in Wallachia were part of the Bulgarian state. Things started changing with the decline of the second Bulgarian empire and slowly, many of these lands emerged as semi-autonomous provinces. (One theory even states that Constanine Tih gave the trans-Danubian provinces autonomy.) These provinces engaged in their own fights for expansion, political union and so forth. I am still amazed with the Bulgaro-Slavinc cultural influences remaining in Romania today. I also find it largely ignored or purposefully neglected.

I ofteb think, that if yoy remove the borders and instead of the differences you focus on the similarities, you could make one land of Romania, Bulgaria and Ex-Yugoslavia.

Funny. I usually hear this fantasy in reverse (with Romanians claiming ownership or whatever South of the Danube). As you might have realized, I'm not a fan of nationalist theories coming from either side, and I'm perpetually annoyed by the idea that ethnicity is as objective as the clothes I am wearing at the moment (especially for the Middle Ages, and even more so for the Balkans). Let's see what we have: an ambiguous Byzanthine patrimony, common for medieval Bulgarians and Romanians, which in part predates the definition of "Bulgarian" or "Romanian", and which has accomodated a lot of Slavic cultural symbols (if you want to talk naming conventions, consider that your nick is of comprised of a Greek word and a Greek name, and that your country has a Turkic name; also, my given name, which is quite traditional in Romania, is a Biblical reference - but that does not make me Jewish). An objective factor which you excluded from your assessement is the language: some years after Dracula was dead, some guy felt he should discard the official and foreign language he would otherwise use, and wrote a letter in Romanian (archaic Romanian, but understandable by a modern speaker, and fully developped on a Romance structure). Unless you think that guy invented the language on the spot, we must assume that it was spoken without being written down for a long time before that. I may not know for sure if Dracula ever spoke it, since no such proof would be gathered, but it would make sense to believe that he might have done so.

Although my native tongue has undergone an extensive campaign to remove the Slavic influences (which are still merely influences on something that predated them), although our culture has willingly discarded connections made with others (in a modern pattern everpresent in the area we both inhabit, Kaloyan), although, again, ethnicity is not God-given, this factor stands as self-evident (alongside others, such as there being a Wallachian state, of no matter how ecclectic a culture, which would entitle us to name its rulers "Wallachian" over anything else). Dahn 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, two objections for a start. Kaloyan is not a Greek name as much as it may remind of the synthesis of Kalo and Ioanis. Let me remind you that in a way similar to Vlad, Kaloyan spend time as a hostage in Constantinople. He returned despising the Byzantines. Also, he was often referred to as "Romeokteon" - the "Roman slayer". Why would he then choose to use a Greek name? I have heard of several verions regarding his name. His brothers were referred to as Kalomanovtsi. Peter was called Kalo-Peter. I doubt they were all very beautiful ... :) Whether Bulgaria is a Turkic name is highly disputable. That is especially in the light of the neo-Iranian theory gaining strength and support with every passing year. At least, I would urge you not to use it as a fact.

I am not going to discuss this in length but as far as nationalism goes, there approximately four distinctive theories on the subject. One of them draws on the idea of the modern state and the construction of the modern nation. Another focusses on an existing "ethnie" that eventually desires self-determination and creates the foundations for a state. Our discussion vacillates between the two. I am no supporter of a blind nationalism. However, there ethnic ties that could and should be carefully examined, keeping in mind that "ethnie" is a fluid category.

As far as the guy writing in Romanian is concerned, his writing doesn't account for much. It shows that among the many ethnic entities existing in these lands, one of them was finally expressed in a written manner. Too bad someone of a Cuman origin didn't benefit by his example. Furthermore, we don't know whether his attempt represents the aspirations of a larger or a small ethnic group. The truth is, people kept on using the "foreign" Bulgarian language as official until the 18th century. And this my friend accounts for many centuries, even after the disappearence of the Bulgarian state. How do you explain that?

What Cuman origin? Even if the first Basarab was of Cuman origin, they intermarried with native Wallachians. So Vlad had Wallachian and Moldavian roots, which give him the Romanian blood; then in addition to this, he had some Bulgarian blood because of the royal marriage between his father. --Candide, or Optimism 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"...which give him the Romanian blood" does not quite fit the non-existence of Romania. He was ONLY Wallachian. My quiery is whether Wallachians were Bulgarian relatives that began emerging as a separate entity after the fall of the Second Bulgarian empire.

"What Cuman origin?" You tell me. There was a large Cuman migration into Bessarabia. Try and remember all the Pechenegs and Uzes too. They didn't disappear into thin air.

Moldavians were also called Wallachians and all Wallachians were Vlachs. I don't understand what you're trying to say that they were "Bulgarian relatives". Sure, we're related, since Vlachs in Bulgaria were assimilated with the Bulgarians and some of the Bulgarians in southern Ro assimilated with the Wallachians. But Wallachians are not Bulgarians, nor do they belong to their group. Yes, there was a Cuman presence in Ro, but what's your point? I said that even if the first Basarab was of Cuman origin, his descents married with Wallachians or Moldavians. --Candide, or Optimism 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Were Wallachian princes so backward that they had to write letters themselves ??

Here is a little something on the Cumans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans --Kaloyan* 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But Wallachians are not Bulgarians, nor do they belong to their group. I think they were. This is what I am more or less trying to say. They started to see themselves as different only after the II Bulgarian Empire started to fragment and went under, and also, when Hungarians began to lose control and influence over those regions as a whole. Had the Bulgarian state persisted they would have been just another group like ths shopi, makedontsi, pomatsi and so on. I also believe that the choice of a Latin language by the newly emerged ruling elite of Romania was very conscious. It was the only way to separate the new Romanian nation from its Hungarian or Slavic neighbours.

Example: East Timor used to be a Portuguese colony. There was some kind of peasent spoken language but the official was Portuguese. Then Indonesia "happened." Everybody started using Indonesian as an official and even spoken language. Now that they gained independence, they chose Portuguese as an official language, although the majority of the new generation(s) do not speak Portuguese ... It was a political act of asserting a new and separate identity from the most recent opressor. A controversial act, nonetheless, for they still used the language of a previous opressor. Sounds like the least of two evils.

You believe wrong and you obviously are clueless on Romanian history. Apart from the obvious fact that the language is mostly Latin based, the Vlach tradition has always existed. Other Vlachs can be found throughout the Balkans. There are sources that mention Vlachs before the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire. In fact, if what you say were true, then the name of the Empire of the Vlachs and Bulgars, and Asen calling himself Vlach, would not exist. --Candide, or Optimism 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Vlach tradition hasn't always exsisted, at least not according to Hungarian historians ... Of course, I only refer to the lands north of the Danube.

okay, not always, but at least before the Empire of the Vlachs and Bulgarians. Now, could you please explain to me how (as you like to claim) Bulgarians would learn Romanian and then identify themselves as Romanians? --Candide, or Optimism 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Check this out: http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17509 Of course, this is one take on the matter but most scholars, even from different perspectives agree with the basic argument - the modern national identity has little to do with medieval forms of identity. People identified with a crown, a dynasty, a state, a region, a village, religion and sometimes with an ethnic group. A state was (and oftentimes still is) almost always multi-ethnic. People were usually subjects of a kingdom or an empire. Take the Byzantine case - a multi-ethnic empire, where the common and official language was Greek with a few exceptions in periods when it was Latin. As we both know, the Bulgarian state streched across the Danube for many centuries. What made the Bulgarian state and the idea of it more enduring than say the Moravian or Avar and others was the fact that it acquired a new religion and a proper alphabet almost from its very begining. Compare everything I have said so far to Romania. To begin with a Romanian state never existed. In addition, people living in the land of present Romania received Christianity, an alphabet and an official language from Bulgaria. Btw, I'm not denying that there were group(s) speaking a Latin dialect (whenever they got there). These groups were a) bi(tri)-lingual, b) spoke a hybrid latin slavic/slavic latin, c) only spoke latin but lived surrounded by slavs and other later migrants (hungarians, uzes, pechenegs, cumans). Later the idea of a new nation-state emerges and it is advanced by a latin-speaking elite, that decides to create a new common language for the newly emerging nation. Eventually people learn. When schools, political institutions and the church all use this new language people adapt just as they did anywhere else. Some become completely assimilated, others less or keep some kind of dual identity that may or may not perish with time. There are countless examples of this throughout the world, as well as on the Balkans. There are around 30 ethnic groups in Turkey today for example. They are all Turkish citizens but are not all ethnic Turks. Actually, your question begs another question: how is a modern nation and its identity created? Well, in short, first you need a national myth and then the creation of a language supported by troops, police and a bureaucratic mechanism. Kaloyan* 06:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The identity of the name Ruman/Roman was used in the Middle Ages, mostly in Wallachia, as it was called, Tara Rumaneasca in Wallachian. The Romanian language is known from the 15th century onward, plus the name of the families and locations before that date. The elites that you speak of came to influence the language in the 19th century - four centuries after the first document written in Romanian, using the Cyrilic alphabet, has been found. Therefore, scholars have a pretty good picture of how the language developed. Since we lacked many scientific words, many of these words were borrowed from French. The English and the Swedes did the exact same thing. The verbal tradition for us has always been the same: Vlachs mixed with some Slavs and other local population and founded the Two Principalities that were to form Romania. The Bulgarians, however, cannot decide whether they are a Turkic, Slavic, Thracian, or Sarmatian people. Many people that most Bulgarians are mixed with Vlachs and in that aspect, I guess you're correct when saying that Romanians and Bulgarians are related to each other. The first document that states the Romanian point of view of Latin herritage was written by Grigore Ureche, long before the rise of the elites. Before him, Hungarian and Polish chronicles wrote the same thing. --Candide, or Optimism 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarians, however, cannot decide whether they are a Turkic, Slavic, Thracian, or Sarmatian people. :))) He-he, ok but this is only a dispute of origins, or of what came first, which is usually meaningless. I have read many people arguing that we should start Bulgarian history with the Thracians, others go for the Bulgars and so on. It seems very important to some people to prove that they are more ancient than others. This is not the point here. The traditional Bulgarian stance is that Bulgarian state and tradition begin on the Balkans with the arrival of Asparouh (He actually settled in Doubroudja in today's Romania first) and the formation of his state. The three major ethnic groups that comprised this state were Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians. There is a difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians. Bulgarians are the peoples descending from this state and tradition. In other words, that comment of yours is irrelevant in this case.

However, turn that comment against the idea of Vlachs and Valachia or even Romania. Do you genuinely believe that there were ONLY Wallachians living in Wallachia? And then, how can you be sure that Tara Rumaneasca was not simply a geographical term? Byzantines also kept calling ancient Macedonia with the same name, although it only meant a name of a region or theme as they called it.

The Romanian language is known from the 15th century onward - Exactly! This is where I see a clear break with the past and it makes a lot of sense. A separate identity begins to emerge from then onwards, but not before.

Bear in mind that I am curious about Romanian history (and its relation to the Bulgarian one) and am simply posing questions. I don't have a definate answer or explanation but am trying to work my head around it, for things are far from clear, as they usually are with history ... There was a lot of crap written in the communist years and it is still very hard to get rid of it for it is deeply ingrained within the system. Kaloyan* 08:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Read this. I've written it myself and everything is sourced. Everything. Not a single statement is left unsourced; and the sources are contemporary, not present. The sources tell about a Vlach identity long, long before 15th century. They also speak about the origin of these people. No, I'm not saying that only Wallachians compromised the land of Wallachia. Many other people contributed to the genetic pool, but that's a different debate. The reason we know that Tara Rumaneasca was not a geographical term - as was the case with Rumelia - is because we know that much of the Wallachians called themselves Ruman/Roman. --Candide, or Optimism 11:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The horseshoe gag

"During his escape, he had the shoes on his horse put on backwards to confuse anyone who tried to follow him." The person who added this has never seen a horse being shod and is ignorant of the gag's origins in the Greek myth concerning Hermes...

More info on this please? The Horse shoe rumor stated here is repeated in "The Most Evil Men in History" series, admittedly not what I'd expect to be 100% accurate, nontheless it's a simple presentation of myth / rumor surrounding Vlad Terpes, the validity of the rumor isn't in question... much of the study of Vlad Terpes is the study of folklore and myth, if this story needs to be expanded upon citing origins and implausibility then so be it.

The story as recounted in the TV documentary series, "The most evil men in history" says that Vlad III was aided by Gypsies in his escape from the invading Turks and the horses they rode were shod backwards to confuse his pursuers. so where did the myth originate from?

Though this myth does dte back to the old greek myths, it was not unheard of at the time for someone to have a special shoe made that left an impression of a backward shoe on the ground while still providing the horse with prober protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.31.157.162 (talk • contribs) 8 September 2006.

A map of the lands that Vlad ruled over

Guys, do we have a map that shows what exact lands Vlad ruled over and in what periods? His capital was in Wallachia but did he have control over Transylvania and Moldova as well, or at least parts of them and when? -- Kaloyan* 09:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallachia had two enclaves in Transylvania: Fagaras and Amlas. He also ruled over the Moldavian Chilia, but Stephen regained it in 1465, after Vlad escaped. --Candide, or Optimism 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)