Talk:Vlad the Impaler

Inspirations

The author(s) has made the claim that Stoker's Dracula was based off of Vlad. As has been previously stated, this is NOT the case. However, the author would do well to note that, although Vlad did not spawn the original Dracula, his grim reputation and favored method of execution did in fact inspire many vampiric roles, such as the undead King whom young Indiana Jones encounters in the Telivision Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodologist (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 August 2009

Incorrect-a large part of Stoker's character is based on Dracula - even if it is somewhat distorted in the novel - this is very well supported in Reliable Sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Actually you are incorrect. Stoker's Dracula is not based on Vlad (if that is what you mean by Dracula) and there are no reliable sources that would support such a claim.Laurukainen (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No support for such a claim? How about the book Dracula itself? The title character goes on a rant about his "ancestors", indirectly talking about himself. In this rant he talks about how his brother left his people for the Turks, how this Dracula overthrew an usurper to his rule, how he supported the suggestions for Crusade against the Ottomans, and how this Dracula crossed the border to harass the Turks. If you've read the history of Vlad III, that might all sound pretty familiar. This is ignoring the obvious fact that the character is described at various points as Dracula, a ruler of Wallachia. That seems a pretty good indication that he's referencing the ruler of Wallachia who went by Draculea.

Obviously Stoker was writing for dramatic effect and not historical accuracy so there are a lot of points that don't mesh with Vlad III, but it's also obvious that Stoker had Vlad (or his understanding of him) in mind when he wrote his book. There's my evidence for, what's your evidence against? The Cap'n (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well from Stoker’s notes (via Elizabeth Miller’s books) one can see that, A) Stoker started writing the book months before he found the name “Dracula”, before this the name of the vampire was Count Wampyr. B) The name Dracula came from Vlad AND from his father. C) Stoker did not know who Vlad was and he did not know the name Vlad or Impaler. D) He chose the name (most probably) because he read that it meant devil in Wallachian (Romanian) language. E) He took a couple of historical references from a “voivode called Dracula” from the same book as the name, but did not know that it was Vlad.

So in a summary, Stoker took the name and a couple of historical facts for his vampire from Vlad and his father. For what we can be sure of, Stoker didn’t know anything else about Vlad, not the name Vlad the Impaler, not of his cruelties and not of his looks. So there is a connection between the two, but to say that “a large part of Stoker's character is based on Dracula” is a very big exaggeration. And I don’t remember that Dracula in the book would refer to himself as the ruler of Wallachia. They are in Transylvania not in Wallachia and the only direct reference to Dracula being a ruler of any specific place is when Van Helsing mentions him being “a son of the land beyond the forest” a.k.a. Transylvania. This information is nothing new or original research, but can be found in many scholarly books about the subject, for example in Elizabeth Miller’s (2000) book “Dracula: Sense&Nonsense”. Laurukainen (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Descendants

Is it worthwhile mentioning in this article descendents of Vlad Dracula? E.g. Catherine Caradja and the adopted Ottomar Rodolphe Vlad Dracula Prince Kretzulesco. And is their descent verifiable?--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is not clear on his lineage. I would be very cautious about adding what might be considered questionable claims without very reliable sources. RashersTierney (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Of course, the article could simply state, "It is claimed that..." or "So-n-so claims...", but the average reader might interpret this as a sort of affirmation of the claim. (Why would they mention it if there wasn't good reason to believe it's true?). Best to mention nothing than to mention something ambiguous.--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The legacy section, in addition to being poorly sourced, is rather vague on what details of Vlad's supposed torture methods are fact and which are merely exaggerated "stories". The article should either clearly indicate the distinction between known fact and legend, or explicitly state that there is no way to know which details are true and which are merely legend. Some guy (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Vlad the Impaler. Favonian (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Vlad III the Impaler → Vlad the Impaler – Per WP:COMMONNAME G Books hit for "Vlad the Impaler"7980. G Books hits for "Vlad III the Impaler" 104. On G Scholar 1220 versus 15 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Should either be "Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia" or "Vlad the Impaler" – as shown above, this awkward mash-up is used in very few sources. WP:NCROY allows for cognomen to be used if they are commonly known by it (and it is in Vlad's case). Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense. There was a "Vlad II" but no "Vald II the Impaler". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Don't think "Vlad III the Impaler" is very common. Rennell435 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. He is most commonly known as Vlad the Impaler. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the current title isn't the best (as in e.g. Louis the German, not "Louis II the German"), but why don't you take a minute to try and establish which is the most commonly used name? I find that "Vlad Tepes" is at least as frequently found (in English) as "Vlad the Impaler". --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

So far, we have the referenced fact that Vlad in 1475 signed as Dragwlya (variant Dragkwlya). Add to this the ubiquitously repeated statement that this is somehow derived from his father's epithet Dracul "the dragon".

There still are a number of problems here.

• whence the spelling Draculea "in Romanian"? Is this modern Romanian, and if so, where is it first seen?
• the name cannot just said to be "in Romanian", because Romanian isn't even attested in the 15th century. At best, this is Proto-Romanian, or post-Proto but still prehistoric Romanian, so we don't have any contemporary grammar to compare this to
• assuming that Dracul is "pre-Romanian" for "the dragon" (before it changed its meaning to "the devil" in extant Romanian), what is the -ea suffix?

The problem of deriving Drakulya or Draculea from Dracul is glossed over far too often. here is a 2003 cybalist discussion, but it doesn't end in any satisfactory conclusion. Its best part is:

nouns/names such as Drãculea, Tzugulea, Haplea, Burghelea, Delea (this a shorter variant of Todérea < Teodor), Mihele/a, Mihale/a & Corne/a, Aldea, Hage/a, Mihalce/a, Vancea, Oancea, Horea (['ho-ræ] is the initial, Transylvanian pronunciation, ['ho-rea] is the pan-Romanian pronunciation, and Horia ['ho-ri-a] is the latest, modified, name, but which has gotten the most popular variant in the last 100 years or so) -- or locutions such as <de-a binelea>, <d'a'mboulea>, <d'a'mpiciorelea>.

I conclude from this that the idea is that -ea just formed familiar forms (hypocorisms) of given names, in "medieval Romanian". Note that this doesn't necessarily say anything about the suffix surviving into or being productive in modern Romanian. But this needs better sources.

The "Dragolea" thing appears to be a suggestion from 1996 that the name has nothing to do with either dragons or with Romanian and is in fact a Slavic given name meaning "beloved one". I haven't found any decent source on this so far. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First Wife

It was once popularized on the internet and then starting to disseminate about a 2 years ago that Vlad's first wife's name was Elsie (illsie). More information went along with this memory of mine when I read it, however, I can no long track these web track sites any longer, so I rely on just the memory of one name, and no paragraph entry regarding any full name or historical synopsis.