Talk:Vlad the Impaler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed

First Marriage[edit]

I think someone got things confused with Vlad the second Dracul (Vlad the Third's father) because if you look at the entries for first and second marriage and ...third the math is entirely impossible. For this to be accurate Vlad would had to have had a child with his first wife at four-years-old! It gives his date of Birth as 1435, Vlad Dracula was only born in 1431! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTheGoblinKing (talkcontribs) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize now that entry was somehow a confused submission about Vlad the Second. Could someone better organize the page and reduce the history about his father, he already has his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone PLEASE fix this. There is no way he had a "Son" with the same name and birth year as his estranged younger brother. They're getting Vlad the Second mixed up with Vlad the third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Vlad the impaler had TWO wives, not three. that "second" wife on this wiki page is his first wife. And that "First" wife is very clearly his MOTHER! The children are Vlad The impaler himself and his brother, Radu. That wasn't his first wife, that was his mother. He was only born in 1431. There is no way he had a son in the 1430s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

According to this citation The British Chronicles, Volume 2 by David Hughes He did have children with three different women. In addition, It Doesn't state when Radu was born, but he died 11 years after his brother. Lagonx (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But that book does not give sources for it's own information, nor does it claim that the three women were all wives. Also you will find most historical documents do say that his brother radu was born roughly four or six years after him. If you notice the section that was removed from this page claimed that Vlad The impaler's first son was born 1436. This is impossible, as he was born in 1431. JTheGoblinKing (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2012

The original paragraph mentioned this: "Radu lived with the Bishop of Oradea in Transylvania until 1482, when he fell ill. He returned to Buda, where he died in his mother's presence.[10] Vlad Tepelus was married to Neacsa Ujlaki and he was an unsuccessful claimant to the Wallachian throne between 1476 and 1488." With another citation: (1994) In search of Dracula: the history of Dracula and vampires. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-65783-0. Obviously Radu wasn't born when his father was 4 years old, but with 2 citations i doubt its made up as his brother has nothing to do with what's mentioned, and tepelus was an unsuccessful claimant when he was already dead. Probably a small mistake and even though i can't verify those citations it's defintly Not a mix-up with his own mother. someone with further information should check to verify how many children he actually had. Lagonx (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And Volume 1 is all about Atlantis, a British monarchy in Roman Britain, etc. Not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no reliable source in regards Vlad's first marriage. Indeed it is only assumed he was married due to folklore regarding his wife's suicide at Poinari Castle, which is exactly that, folklore. If nothing appears here regarding a reliable source, I will delete it by end Feb 2013.Jens sn (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Actually he did know the name Vlad the Impaler but Tepes / Impaler is a posthumous title. That's why it never comes up in the novel. It was a title given to Dracula AFTER his death. Professor Abraham Van Helsing himself says "This must be The Dracula who fought The Turks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTheGoblinKing (talkcontribs) 07:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the commentors above me said that the novel Dracula is set in Transylvania and not Wallachia. This made me wince. I suggest you look into what Wallachia is. It's... Wait for it... Romania! You know, the country that Transylvania is a part of. The Prince of Wallachia was born in Transylvania.

Also could someone do something about the current messiness of this page. It looks like half of this is about Vlad Dracul the second and not Vlad the Third. It could get confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTheGoblinKing (talkcontribs) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that Bram Stoker knew the name Impaler (Tepes). If you have found some evidence for this claim, then please provide it. I'm also having trouble following your logic about the fact that the name is posthumous. Yes it is (mostly) posthumous to Vlad, but it has nothing to do with the fictional Dracula.
And about Wallachia and Transylvania. I know that this is hair-splitting, but Transylvania was not part of Romania during the time of Stoker's novel, it was part of Austria-Hungary. So Transylvania is not in the same country as Wallachia in Stoker's novel, and never even had been in history with the exception of a year during Michael the Brave's rule. Laurukainen (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to add also that Transylvania and Wallachia are very different parts of Romania, which cannot and should not be bundled into one. Historically, Transylvania has been for a longer period under Austro-Hungarian rule, than it has been part of Romania, one of the major reasons for which some Hungarian minorities try to undo the union with this territory. Wallachia, on the other hand, is an undisputed Romanian land and together with Moldova (the region not the current country) form the origin of the modern Romania. As much as I'd like to claim Vlad the impaler for Transylvania, he was a Wallachian, born in Transylvania and who ruled Wallachia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Van HElsing in the Dracula novel says "This must be THE Dracula who fought the Turks." That's vlad. Why would he need to know the name Tepes? Dracula himself never called himself that. It was a post humorous name given over fifty years after his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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)

I added the blood descendents and verified the accuracy. (I have no idea that he also had adopted children). Elenaschifirnet (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Accord to this CBS News thing, Bush and Kerry are not only related to each other, but also related to Vlad the Impaler: Around the 2 minute mark is when they show it. Not sure if it's worth mentioning? Not sure how reliable sources work either. (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it could well be true, the thing is, when you go backwards in lineage you only have to go back a few generations before everyone is distantly related to everyone, particularly if you have so much as one noble anywhere in your family tree, then you're instantly related to every noble family in Europe and ergo everyone they themselves are related to. If you have European ancestry you're 100% likely to be related to Charlemagne. I wouldn't bother mentioning it. (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


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[edit]

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 ImpalerVlad 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.


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)

Check the German article. It cites a German book edited by a certain Wilfried Seipel in Vienna in 2008. It reads as if the Dragul hypothesis is from there, but I'm not sure. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fact is that he signed his name "Wladislaus Dragwlya". The -ea ending in the language is a diminutive meaning "of the". Even though Vlad never signed documents "Drăculea", the "ya" ending used by Vlad himself corresponds to the modern "ea" diminutive. Calling him "Dracula" is erroneous, and those who insist on doing so do so ignorantly. Jtclendenen (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

However, we should insist on doing so as per WP:NAME and WP:NOR, because peer-reviewed books published in English prefer the Dracula form. (I refer to the books cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

First Wife[edit]

It was once popularized on the internet and then starting to disseminate about two 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talkcontribs) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole palge is a mess. Currently the woman listed as his "first wife" is his MOTHER! Look at the dates his "Sons" were born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to the lede[edit]

The first sentence of the second paragraph is poorly written and actually quite confusing. I'm going to tweak the grammar a bit so it actually makes sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


here there was an image of a document where he signed his name as wladislaus drakwyla. who removed it?!-- (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that I removed it, however it should be noted that in that link he signed as DRAGWLYA not Drakwlya, meaning "Dear" or "The precious" etc not "The dragon.Lagonx (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

second wife[edit]

Ilona Szilágyi article mentions she is vlad's second wife. in this article it says she's his third wife. please clarify. Lagonx (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ilona is Vlad's second wife. This has been confirmed by Professors McNally and Florescu in their biographies about Vlad. (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


I removed this part:

Petre Tutea, Romanian philosopher characterized Vlad Tepes as follows:
Vlad Țepeș... has the merit of placing on the Moldavian throne the greatest of the Romanian voievods, Stephen the Great. With weapons! He has the merit that he lowered the absolute ethics through the spikes put in the buttocs at absolute level. You were sleeping with your bag of gold near your head and were afraid to steal it from yourself. This is the absolute voievod, Vlad Țepeș. Because without this one the Romanian history is a lambs' medow!
(In Romanian in the original text: "Vlad Țepeș...are meritul de a fi pus pe tronul Moldovei pe cel mai mare voievod român, pe Ștefan cel Mare. Cu armele! Are meritul că a coborât morala absolută prin țepele puse în cur la nivel absolut. Dormeai cu punga de aur la cap și ți-era frică să n-o furi tu de la tine. Ăsta-i voievod absolut, Vlad Țepeș. Păi fără ăsta istoria românilor e o pajiște cu miei!") reference - Petre Țuțea - 322 de vorbe memorabile ale lui Petre Țuțea, București, Editura Humanitas, 1997, p.119./ISBN 973-28-0630-3.

I don't see why put a quote from Tutea. He's not a proper historian, he's just known as a bigot nationalist/fascist "philosopher". I'd think that a quote from a historian like Nicolae Iorga or Xenopol would be better. bogdan (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Do we have clear authority for his religious affiliations, in particular that he was a convert to Christianity and if so what from? PatGallacher (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he was a Christian for his whole life, unlike he's brother Radu who converted to Islam. For the most part of his life he was a Orthodox and according to the Russian stories after he's release from Hungary he converted to Catholicism. Laurukainen (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


I propose mentioning a possible connection to porphyria, which may have given rise to the vampire myth. It is mentioned on the porphyria wikipedia entry as well as other sources. HonkyTonkHarlot (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's worth doing unless you can find some good sources for that. The porphyria wikipedia entry doesn't have any. To me linking Vlad with this disorder seems to be yet another attempt to make some odd connections between Vlad and vampires, even though vampires of course have had no problems with sunlight untill the movies. Laurukainen (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler and Dracula[edit]

Dracula means Son of the Dragon, which his father was Dracul which means Dragon. Well Vlad Dracula did inspire Bram Stokers Dracula, because if you have seen the movie it will show at the beginning him in the war invading Wallchia and battling out the war and the rest of the movie is just vamparic fiction.--Send AND Reply (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that there was a book before the movie? DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling 2nd paragraph[edit]

"This, know doubt, ". Is this proper English? -- (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that looks like it was a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. I've fixed it, but remember that you are allowed and encouraged to be bold and fix any mistakes yourself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference to "In the Shadow of Empires"[edit]

A reference to "In the Shadow of Empires", a book about the historic Dracula has now been removed several times. Can someone please explain why that is? The book is a serious non-fiction work that is available globally through Amazon and several other serious outlets. Jens sn (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the wording is a clear and undeniable violation of our policies against WP:SPAM. Because it's a self-published book with no mainstream notability. Because, based upon your user name, it would seem you are violating WP:COI policy by adding it here yourself. Any one of those would be more than enough reason to remove it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that your comment (on the edit) that 'removing crap content is contributing' as it is not for you to decide what is crap and what isn't. If it was up to my opinion this whole page would be deleted and redone as it is essentially crap, but I don't feel that is my station. Similarly I disagree with your opinion on self-published books. To suggest that a self-pubish book can not be relevant, or a published book necessarily is, is not true. Anyhow, I get your point and I will reformulate the section to include all currently available biographies. Jens sn (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
If you feel the book should be included, can you provide a third-party reliable source establishing that the book is significant in some manner? Doniago (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As either the author or someone who is such a fan they made a user name similar to the author's name, you sure don't get to decide that it's good enough to belong here. You need reliable third party sources discussing how good the book is before you can expect an encyclopedia to make any reference to it at all.
Since the biography section was only ever created by you to provide justification for including the book you would like to have free advertising here for, I have removed it completely. As you mentioned in an earlier comment, those generally aren't really biographies of Vlad anyway, they are books about Dracula, which is not the same thing.
Now for the big question: did you read our policies on spam, conflict of interest and so forth that I linked to above and are ignoring them, or did you not bother to read them at all? If this becomes an ongoing problem we will have no choice but to block you from editing this article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I understand the issue. I know the policies and believe I operate within them. To have a direct interest is not necessarily a bias, indeed some of the real knowledge on a subject must be found from those that are directly involved. Anyhow, not a problem, I am sure someone else may decide to contribute in this field, as the books listed are actually (or claim to be) biographies and not jus "about Dracula". Oh and here is one that may interst you some, a review written by an anonymous reader from the US The author not only assembled all available information but he also guided the reader through the exciting process of gaining an understanding of why things happened. Somehow he managed to achieve a perfect balance of being passionate about the subject and at the same time to refrain from speculating too much (and only when necessary - due to lack of data). Great work that managed to completely change that little that I "knew" about this historical figure.' Contrary to you he/she have actually read ten book in question. Jens sn (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Reading through the Edit-comments and the Talk, wouldn't it be a solution to just change or remove the offensive links? From what I saw of it (brief as it was), it was quite useful and there are/were no source-references being added. TiReign (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Corrections Various[edit]

- War with the Ottomans - Wallachia did not pay Jizya. Jizya is a per-head tax paid by non-muslim poulations INSIDE the Ottoman Empire. Best word for what is paid by a country is 'tribute', also as per Babinger P. 203.Jens sn (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Early Life - There is no proof that Vlad Dracula was a member of The Order of the Dragon. Florescu and McNally uses the word "poised to resume the wows he had inherited from his fater as a member of the Dragon Order" (P.129), but they are speculating (as they are throughout the book), as there are no indications that Vlad Dracula was ever invested in the Dragon Order or that the order indeed was hereditary, which would be higly unusual for a noble order. Membership of the Dragon Order would not have been attached to the position as Voivode, and if any of Dracul's son should have inherited the title it would have beeen Vlad Călugărul who was Vlad Dracula's older brother (after Mircea II of Wallachia had been killed in 1447).Jens sn (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Life in Edirne - There is no proof that Radu Drtacula ever converted to Islam. Neither did he 'command the Janissary contingents'!, He was, as per Babinger, allowed to live at the court, and the title 'bey' is the Ottoman/Turkish honorary/polite form to address a genteman. See Babinger p. 207 'In sharp contrast to his brutal and ungainly brother, Radu was a weakling and a voluptuary, famous for his beauty. He had spent years as hostage at the sultan's court, where he had won Mehmed's special favor.'Jens sn (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Early Life -Dracula's mother is NOT beleived to be 'the second wife of Vlad Dracul, Princess Cneajna'. The source referrenced specifically says (P.45) that 'most historinas believe that Dracul married Princess Cneajna...etc', it also states (same page) that 'in addition to his wife, Vlad Dracula, like his predecessors, had a number of mistresses'.Jens sn (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Life in Edirene - The whole sentence 'These years presumably had a great influence on Vlad's character and led to Vlad's well-known hatred for the Ottoman Turks, the Janissary, his brother Radu for converting to Islam and the young Turkish prince Mehmed II (even after he became sultan). He was envious of his father's preference for his elder brother, Mircea II and half brother, Vlad Călugărul. He also distrusted the Hungarians and his own father for trading him to the Turks and betraying the Order of the Dragon's oath to fight the Ottoman Empire.' is unsubstantiated and based on presumption. It is furthermore incorrect (e.g. Radu was not a muslim). I have given up trying to make it credible and/or readable and deleted it in its entirety.Jens sn (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Early Life - As Vlad's mother is unknown, the sentence 'under the care and tutelage of their mother and the wives of other exiled boyars' is incorrect and has been removed.Jens sn (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

- Life in Edirne - The sentence 'Vlad was later released under probation and taken to be educated...etc. ' is nonsense. Vlad was a rolyal hostage and would have been treated accordingly. I have reformulated the sentence.Jens sn (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced information about marriages[edit]

I removed the two marriages section, since they were completely unreferenced. I looked around for a reliable one I could insert (that matched the claims) but I could find none whatsoever. Certainly not that he was ever married to a Bathory. Methinks someone is trying to create their own little subplot to Vlad's life, but that's not what an encyclopedia is for. If you have concerns about the completely unreferenced information I removed, please comment here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Protected[edit]

I see endless reverts of unreferenced data asking for references to remove! That is not correct. Unreferenced data is clearly original research and has no place here. I've locked the page for a week for all of you to come to a consensus about this section - and maybe someone can proper supply references for it to stay and not be original research.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
SUGGESTION, based on actual data, and the assumption that Florescu and McNally are good as a reference, I suggest a formulation along the lines of: 'Even though it is safe to assume that Vlad Dracula would have been married, most probably to cement his relationship to one or more noble family, there are few references to Vlad Dracula's wife or wives. The first mention is in Romanian folklore, in which Vlad's wife should have thrown herself from the castle at Poienari on the approach of the Ottomans in 1462. The second reference is from the "Russian Stories" and based on the first-hand experience of Fedor Kuritsyn, a Russian envoy to Hungary, who met Dracula's family after the death of Dracula. According to him Dracula had, in the later years of his imprisonment in Hungary, married "a sister of the [Hungarian] King". On this basis it has been speculated that Dracula must have been married at least twice. The fact that Dracula had several sons is not in itself proof of marriage, as Wallachian succession customs made any son of a ruling house eligible for the throne as long as the father was of a royal house and whether the son was born in or out of marriage. It is thus not possible to positively identify any of Vlad Dracula’s wives'.Jens sn (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There was no Russia back in XV century. (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Some sneaky bastard doctored the opening image of Vlad the Impaler's Wikipedia page. See if you can spot it...[edit]

Some sneaky bastard doctored the opening image of Vlad the Impaler's Wikipedia page. See if you can spot it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely. I changed it back one hour earlier ;-). The animated gif has been nominated for deletion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I just noticed it, although nice work. Adrian (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"Nice work" what? That was a work of genius and a tiny fun easter egg. It should definitely belong to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced sentences[edit]

"Vlad had rounded the impaling sticks so they wouldn't hit major organs and kill people instantly. Instead, the people had a slow, painful death."

This looks like it belongs in a different section, as it's a non sequitur where it is located now, in the "War with the Ottomans" section.StaniStani  03:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources and References[edit]

With reliable source in mind I have dug into all the sources/references currently listed in this page. I have found that the following sources/references are NOT reliable sources as they are mainly web-pages or publications with no heritage or recognition. UNLESS SOMEONE CAN ARGUE THE REASON WHY A SOURCE/REFERENCE SHOULD STAY, I will delete these references, and possible the content related, by end April 2013.

Detected unreliable sources:

4 "Count Dracula's Legend". Retrieved 2012-08-17

7 Murgescu, Mirela-Luminița (1999). In Kahl, Thede; Schippel, Larisa. Vom "guten Christen" zum "tapferen Rumänen". Forum: Rumänien. Frank & Timme. p. 248. ISBN 978-3-8659-6405-2.

9 "The young Dracula environment and education". Retrieved 2012-08-17

13 "Vlad Tepes Dracula's internal policy". Retrieved 2012-08-17.

14 DRACULA: between myth and reality. by Adrian Axinte. Stanford University.

15 "Vlad Tepes". Retrieved April 24, 2012 16 "Vlad the Impaler second rule [3]". Retrieved 2012-08-17.

18 Other estimates for the army include 150,000 by Michael Doukas, 250,000 by Laonicus Chalcond.

19 "Vlad Tepes". Retrieved 2012-08-17

20 "The Life and Deaths of Vlad the Impaler". Retrieved 2012-08-17.

22 Rezachevici, Constantin (2002). The tomb of Vlad Tepes: the most probable hypothesis. Journal of Dracula Studies, Number 4

23 Top 10 Royals Who Would Have Been Terrible On Facebook". Time. 9 November 2010.

34 Story". Retrieved 2012-08-17

35 Miho Bučinjelić (Michael Bocignolus Raguseus). "Epistula Michaelis Bocignoli Ragusei". Retrieved 2012-08-17

36 "Epistula Michaelis Bocignoli Ragusei in multiple languages". Retrieved 2012-08-17

37 Letopisetul cantacuzinesc" (in (Romanian)). Retrieved 2012-08-17

39 Prof. Ioan Scurtu, historian

40 Nicu Parlog (2009-11-30). "Vlad Tepes - the first victim of a press campaign". Retrieved 2012-08-17

Jens sn (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't remove number 22. First of all Constantin Rezachevici is a well-known Romanian historian whose area of specialization is medieval history. Secondly the Journal of Dracula Studies, although a webpage journal, is edited/owned by professor Elizabeth Miller who is also a very well-known scholar in this field and has written many books on the subject. Also the other scholars who have written in that journal are also pretty well-know scholars of this field, like for example Raymond T. McNally and Duncan Light. On top of everything, this journal is also peer-reviewed, so I really don't see any reason to delete it. Laurukainen (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
A good point and duly noted. Thank you for clarifying that. Jens sn (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

4 "Count Dracula's Legend". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed as has the statement 'Vlad III spent much of his rule campaigning against the Ottoman Empire and its expansion' associated with it. Vlad did not spend most of his rule fighting the Ottomans. His only campaign against them was the raid on the southern coast of the Danube in the winter of 1461. He then defended against them in 1462 and did a short incursion into Bosnia before his third and final rule. The statement, as the reference, is unreliable (and wrong) Jens sn (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

7 Murgescu, Mirela-Luminița (1999). In Kahl, Thede; Schippel, Larisa. Vom "guten Christen" zum "tapferen Rumänen". Forum: Rumänien. Frank & Timme. p. 248. ISBN 978-3-8659-6405-2. has been removed. 'Citation needed' inserted. Jens sn (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

9 "The young Dracula environment and education". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. Text unchanged. Jens sn (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

13 "Vlad Tepes Dracula's internal policy". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. 'Citation needed' inserted. Jens sn (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

14 DRACULA: between myth and reality. by Adrian Axinte. Stanford University. has been removed. Jens sn (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

15 "Vlad Tepes". Retrieved April 24, 2012 16 "Vlad the Impaler second rule [3]". Retrieved 2012-08-17. has been removed. Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

16 "Vlad the Impaler second rule [3]". Retrieved 2012-08-17. has been removed. Text left unchanged. Jens sn (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

18 Other estimates for the army include 150,000 by Michael Doukas, 250,000 by Laonicus Chalcond. has been removed. Text left unchanged. Jens sn (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

19 "Vlad Tepes". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. Text left unchanged. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

20 "The Life and Deaths of Vlad the Impaler". Retrieved 2012-08-17. has been removed, Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

23 Top 10 Royals Who Would Have Been Terrible On Facebook". Time. 9 November 2010. has been removed. Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

34 Story". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

37 Letopisetul cantacuzinesc" (in (Romanian)). Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

39 Prof. Ioan Scurtu, historian has been removed. Citation Needed inserted. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

40 Nicu Parlog (2009-11-30). "Vlad Tepes - the first victim of a press campaign". Retrieved 2012-08-17 has been removed. Jens sn (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference "Andreescu, Ștefan (1998). Vlad Țepeș (Dracula): între legendă și adevăr istoric [Vlad Tepes (Dracula): between legend and historical truth]. Editura Enciclopedica. ISBN 9789734502585" and "Stefan Andreescu - Vlad Tepes Dracula". Retrieved 2012-08-17. are dead ends and have been removed. Jens sn (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Vlad's birthplace[edit]

I've deleted 'in the Kingdom of Valahia', as Sighisoara never belonged to that entity (proper English spelling Wallachia).Roman69 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to Roman Catholicism[edit]

This whole (new) section is based on two (new) unreliable sources (currently listed as 11 and 12). I have removed the sources, inserted a 'Citation Needed' marker and unless the statements in the new section can be substantiated I will remove the whole section by end September 2013. Jens sn (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources in question are: and neither of which have any credibility as per reliable source Jens sn (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New reference has been added ( It is not credible. The section and the new reference has been removed in its entirety as per the above warning. Jens sn (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of executions section: reflexive nationalism?[edit]

The line actually stating the historical estimates for the number of deaths attributed to Vlad is suffixed with the defensive statement that the number is roughly equal to "the cumulative number of executions over four centuries of European witchhunts", with the source being Florescu at the Center for Romanian Studies, the official historical bureau of the Romanian government and a staunchly pro-Vlad non-neutral source. To dismiss Vlad's death toll by basically stating it was "no worse than X atrocity that you other people did" (in this case the witch-hunting behavior of Western Europeans), especially since it came from a government source, strikes me as a classic example of irrelevant reflexive apologism when an unpleasant historical truth about a nationalist figure or institution is brought up. The figures are either accurate or they're not; it doesn't require context, especially irrelevant context.

This line smacks of the old joke that whenever an American would point out some inglorious or distasteful truth about the Soviet Union, no matter how neutrally worded, their instant angry response would be "And you are lynching Negroes!", regardless of whether that had anything to do with the topic at hand. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don’t really understand your argument and I really can’t see how making the comparison could in anyway be considered as pro-Vlad. The article states that the number of Vlad’s victims is comparable to the victims of European witch hunts. In other words the article states that Vlad killed in less than seven years as much people as the whole number of executions in over four centuries. How on earth can that comparison be interpreted as pro-Vlad? I would argue that it is in fact quite the opposite. That Vlad managed to kill in less than seven years as much people as the whole European witch hunt did in 400 years, that’s not irrelevant eflexive apologism, that’s just putting the numbers in context, and not in a positive one. Laurukainen (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Vlad Tepes[edit]

I know this has sort of been covered but why does the title use his cognomen at all? I know he's most commonly known as "The Impaler" but what's wrong with using his actual name and having Vlad The Impaler redirect to it? This seems kind of unacademic, Ted Kaczynski's article isn't titled "Ted Kaczynski The Unabomber", Reinhard Heydrich's isn't "Reinhard Heydrich The Butcher of Prague". In my opinion it should be "Vlad Tepes III, Prince of Wallachia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Some historical rulers are more widely known through their cognomen than through their “real” name. I would say that Vlad is more widely known as Vlad the Impaler than as Vlad III and therefore should be called with that name. Naming the article Vlad Tepes doesn’t really make sense, since “Tepes” means the Impaler in Romanian and as long as this is an English page, the title/name should be in English. Just like Ivan the Terrible is just that and not Ivan Grozny or even Ivan IV. One could argue that the name should be Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, but again Vlad the Impaler is more widely known and/or used.Laurukainen (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I thought "Tepes" was the family name. (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to revisit an old subject, but I also feel Vlad the Impaler is nonacademic. I'm a historian myself, and would greatly prefer his actual name of Vlad III of Wallachia, as we do with many other nobles. We could keep the redirect for Vlad the Impaler and reference his cognomen in the lede, but I see no reason to title the article something he was never called in his lifetime. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

References Clean Up[edit]

I have for some time now tried to keep the list of references tidy in terms of credibility. I am now doing a sanitization as there are several references which appear more than once and there a still a few loose ends in terms of credibility.

Over and above cleaning up I thus intent to remove two references to "Andreescu; McNally & Florescu" and "Andreescu, McNally". as I write references 19 and 22. Neither of these references contain but the names of already references authors of other works. These references will be replaced by "citation missing" templates. All other changes will be documented herein.Jens sn (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The two non-existing references deleted as per above. Multiple references to Florescu/McNally unified into a single reference. Jens sn (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
New reference "James Craig Holte (1 January 1997). Dracula in the Dark: The Dracula Film Adaptations. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-0-313-29215-6." is not a credible source for the historic Vlad Dracula. It is probably credible when it comes to Vampire movies. It has been removed and a Citation Missing template inserted. Jens sn (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
New reference 'Porter, Ray. "The Historical Dracula". Retrieved 1 January 2014.' is not credible. It has been removed. Jens sn (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested name change: Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia[edit]

I believe that "Vlad the Impaler" shows a geographic bias, as this is how he's better known in English speaking countries but not Eastern Europe. The name "Impaler" I believe also violates neutrality as it seems to be giving a judgement on him. I suggest instead the article's name be changed to "Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I second this change; "Impaler" is not his actual or contemporary name. While it should be immediately referenced in the lead, it should not be the article title. If we don't see any debate on this, I'll change the title. The Cap'n (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change. Although Vlad did not call himself the Impaler, the name was used during his lifetime by the Turks and it has been used in Romania since the 16th Century. Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia has never been used by Vlad himself or his contemporaries and is therefore not valid in my opinion. There are countless rulers throughout history who are known by their cognomen, like for example two of Vlad’s brothers: Radu the Handsome and Vlad the Monk. I also don’t believe the name violates neutrality or shows a geographic bias. He was known by that name in Romania and is also referred as such in many Romanian history books and older documents. This is also an English Wikipedia page, so English versions of names of historical rulers should be used. Besides, even the Romanian Wikipedia page refers to him as “the Impaler”. Because of these arguments, I’m strongly against the changing of the name of this article.Laurukainen (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You bring up some excellent points, Laurukainen (talk), and I agree that Vlad the Impaler (and Vlad Tepes) should redirect here, and that the first sentence should clearly identify him as such for the common reader. However, an encyclopedia is first and foremost an academic compendium, and it seems appropriate for an historical figure to have their historical name (as modern historians regard him) as the actual title of the article. If the concern is for what name he went by in life, we could compromise with Vlad Dracula/Draculea, which he did use in life and still is an obviously connection to the popular conception of him. What do you think? It's based on the man's actual life, rather than his posthumous reputation, but still acknowledges the common knowledge base. The Cap'n (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this one. At issue, Wikipedia articles tend to prefer the "popular" name, rather than the historic one. Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and so forth. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I might actually backtrack my opinion a little bit. It seems that some articles about historical rulers tend to use the "popular" name like menitioned above and some use the "historical" name like for example Mircea I of Wallachia and not Mircea the Elder or even Stephen III of Moldavia and not Stephen the Great. Then again a name like Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia is not, at least to my knowledge widely used in history books. So that's why I don't really see where that name would come from. Agreed, he was the third ruler called Vlad to rule Wallachia but I have not found that name to be widely used. Then again Vlad Dracula/Draculea is also not without it's problems, mainly because of the connotation with the name of the vampire Dracula, although Vlad did use that name a couple of times during his third reign. I still don't see the problem with the name "Vlad the Impaler" because that is how he is and was widely known. But if the majority wants to change the name of the article to something more fitting, I wont "fight" it. In that case I would actually prefer Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia even if it is a later and somewhat artifical creation. I however would still rather stick with the name Vlad the Impaler.Laurukainen (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points all around, and I appreciate the honest, reasoned consensus-building (it's becoming too rare these days). Given the posts above, I agree that Vlad III is not in keeping with WP norms. I can tolerate Vlad the Impaler, but I'd really rather have a title that's both popularly known and used by the actual historical figure. Vlad Dracula/Draculea (sp?) seems to be that. I understand the confusion with the fictional vampire, but encyclopedia's exist to clear up just that sort of misunderstanding. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not only allowed to have an English language bias, it is supposed to have an English language bias. That’s why it’s English Wikipedia. If English speakers call him “Vlad the Impaler” then we should follow suit. It’s not our place to try to set a new precedent, and it’s not our place to advise the readers of what they should call him. (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Surprised to see you here,, but welcome regardless. English bias is not really something that is at issue here (as far as I've seen), it's more an issue of what is most historically appropriate to refer to him by. It's not as clear cut as "what English speakers call him," unfortunately, as there are many things different groups call him. Popular conception often refers to him as Vlad the Impaler, though he's almost as frequently called Vlad Tepes, while historians may use either names or Vlad III of Wallachia. It's not pushing a POV to try to advise readers about his actual name, and I would argue that having a civil discussion that culminates in consensus as we've done sets an excellent precedent. The Cap'n (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014[edit]

Some of the following information is incorrect please let me correct some.of the context Giokublakahn (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Describe what you want changed, and provide sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. It is also not the place to request increased userrights and autoconfirmed will come in time with a few edits... — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What were the requested edits?[edit]

@Giokublakahn, even if we don't reduce the limits, I'm curious about what you felt was inaccurate on the page. Please let us know, with sources if you have them. The Cap'n (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Convert to or from?[edit]

At the bottom of the article are links "Converts for Orthodoxy to Catholicism" and "Converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" and Vlad appears on both lists.

BUT there's nothing about this in the article.

So what's the story behind this? Did he convert from one to the other, and then back again?

Montalban (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

False translation of the name "Dracula" from Romanian into English[edit]

In the introductive part it reads: "Thus, Dracula literally means "Son of the Dragon"."

This is utterly false.

In Romanian the word "dracula" means strictly nothing, it hasn't any meaning at all.

The original Romanian word is "Drăculea", which is a sort of diminutive form of the word "dracul", which means "the devil/the dragon" and "ulea" in Romanian means "son of".

This diminutive Romanian form "drăculea" from "dracul" doesn't indicate the meaning of "son of" by any means at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon IP, but prof's McNally and Florescu state the opposite on page 9 of their seminal work, In Search of Dracula: The History of Dracula and Vampires, revised edition, 1994. These authorities have written two other biographies on Vlad. We must stick to what the Reliable Sources state. Remember, this is the English Wiki, and there may be some issue between English spellings translating in Romanian .... It's also listed on page 15 of the previous paperback edition of their book from 1972, so they didn't deem that it needed correction. It's also in my old 1938 Columbia Dictionary (which is sort of creepy in that the flag representing Germany is the Nazi 'Swastika' flag - current for the time.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when I was travelling in Romania in 2000, I was told that "Dracul" meant "dragon" and "Dracula" meant "son of dragon." ChriCom (talk) 3 April 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth place dispute[edit]

I attempted to insert a compromise between the two sides that are disputing the "birth place" in the infobox. I have no strong position on the phrasing, was just trying to find a middle ground to provide a starting place for discussion. This was blanked out by one of the edit warring parties in such a way that it mangled the formatting of the infobox and messed up the formatting of the page, so I reverted back to the version I had inserted.

I will not take part in the discussion as I have no strong opinion on the wording regardless of which version; but discussion must take place. I strongly encourage all involved parties to discuss and establish the consensus here and to stop edit warring (which will only result in additional blocks and/or page protection). If a discussion already took place and I overlooked it, then please help point that out so all parties can see the established consensus if they wish to dispute that consensus. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this isn't a dispute between two sides. The editor Vlad_Tepes0425 wishes to force incorrect information into the article and several other editors disagree. It's a case of right and wrong and Vlad_Tepes0425 is wrong. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodreads as a source?[edit]

Looking at the references section, I noticed a reference listed to's page "Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: With Various Political Observations Relating to Them by William Wilkinson - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists". In code, that's

<ref>{{cite web|url= |title=Count Dracula's Legend | |date= |accessdate=2012-08-17}}</ref>

Why is Goodreads cited as a source rather than the book? Goodreads doesn't say anything about what the source purportedly supports, that Bram Stoker connected the name "Dracula" with vampirism I can trace the existing reference back to User:Tpbradbury in [1], but all he did was standardize it. Nay, the original insertion of the Goodreads URL was [2], by User:ProfessorAM, who is long gone. Does anyone have comment on why that link/reference should or should not be there? If nobody says anything, I wish to remove it and replace it simply with a book citation. --Anon423 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing / contradictory information[edit]

The body of this article says he ruled from 1436-1442, but it doesn't mention anything about a rule in 1448. The infobox at the top right is the other way around.

The article says that after being ousted in 1442, he returned with Ottoman support. But it doesn't say when.

It says he was taken hostage for several years starting at age 13. But it doesn't say when or why he was released.

The infobox says he reigned again starting in 1456, but nothing in the article says how that started.

Someone should fix/add that info. - (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information in introduction[edit]

I noticed that the introduction carries some seriously incorrect information, which is perhaps not surprising since it is badly referenced. To be precise it says:

"Vlad III is revered as a folk hero in Romania as well as other parts of Europe for his protection of the Romanians both north and south of the Danube. A significant number of Romanian common folk and remaining boyars (nobles) moved north of the Danube to Wallachia, recognized his leadership and settled there following his raids on the Ottomans.[1]"

This is incorrect as there have never been Romanians below the Danube (and indeed at the time of Vlad III there were no Romanians at all - the country is a relatively recent formation under that name. The region which is now Romania was known as Wallachia. South of the Danube lay the Bulgarian Empire until its destruction by the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to state that there were Romanians south of the Danube who could flee north of the Danube - there were and could only be Bulgarians or Ottoman Turks there (Indeed I know that some Bulgarians did flee north of the Danube which is why there were considerable Bulgarian communities in Romania, in places such as Tulca for example). This kind of statement appears geared towards an attempt of historical revisionism with chauvinistic tendencies on the part of the Romanian authors cited in the single reference used. It also constitutes something of a historical theft from the Bulgarian people (or a silly attempt at one anyway). Wikipedia ought to stamp such things out. I could fix it myself but I would prefer to let more experience people edit the page. Since the English language page is the "main" page in many ways, it should be subject to more stringent review and agenda fuelled incorrect information should not be allowed on that page - the Romanian language page can say what it likes if this is what they believe I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dealings with the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Under the above sub-heading the last line of the first paragraph says " agreeing to pay the tribute to the Sultan."

Unless there is some specific kind of tribute, shouldn't that "the" be removed? Solri89 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will add information later[edit]

if no one minds, I will use a book as a source of information for more information. The events from 1436 to 1456(his first reign) is quite lacking .

Winterysteppe (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Books that are not self-published or "novelty press" published are usually considered reliable sources. Be sure to include as much information as you can in the reference so someone with access to a good library can verify the source if they are so inclined. {{Cite book}} is your friend. Please include an ISBN number if available. If you can find the exact text you are quoting in Google Books or similar archive, a URL to that link would be useful as well. If you can't, a VERY SHORT (less than a sentence if possible) quote from the book either in the article or in the citation will be helpful for verification purposes. If it's too awkward to put the direct quote in the article, put it in the citation (|quote= in {{cite book}} is your friend). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Hello! In response, i will add provide the most amount of information possible. I just wanted some time to add well-written chunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talkcontribs) 00:17, 1 January 2016‎
Just curious, what is the book you're citing? Depending on how old/common it is, there might be a digital version publicly available that we can link to. Let me know and I'll look into it. The Cap'n (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


I know that his alleged sadism is often mentioned or emphasized in literature, especially in books published by scholars who want to secure their living based on new and new publications about Dracula's life. However, I think we should avoid stupid, biased theories about the origin of his cruelty such "his experiences in the Ottoman Empire" if we cannot refer to actual events which substantiate these assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources written around the time he was alive spoke of his sadistic nature. The late medieval German scripts write of him as terribly sadistic and even the Slavic scripts that try to write of him in a more favorable light also acknowledge that he was sadisitic and cruel. Just stating the truth. It is not just secondary sources (from the 20th/21st century) that imply he was sadistic, but primary sources written around the time he was alive too. Here are a few passages from the same Wiki article to affirm this: "The stories about Vlad's plundering raids in Transylvania were clearly based on an eyewitness's account because they contain accurate details (including the lists of the churches destroyed by Vlad and the dates of the raids).[150] They describe Vlad as a "demented psychopath, a sadist, a gruesome murderer, a masochist", worse than Caligula and Nero.[149] However, the stories emphasizing Vlad's cruelty are to be treated with caution because his brutal acts were very probably exaggerated (or even invented) by the Saxons.[151]" "... [Vlad] had a big copper cauldron built and put a lid made of wood with holes in it on top. He put the people in the cauldron and put their heads in the holes and fastened them there; then he filled it with water and set a fire under it and let the people cry their eyes out until they were boiled to death. And then he invented frightening, terrible, unheard of tortures. He ordered that women be impaled together with their suckling babies on the same stake. The babies fought for their lives at their mother's breasts until they died. Then he had the women's breasts cut off and put the babies inside headfirst; thus he had them impaled together. — About a mischievous tyrant called Dracula vodă (No. 12–13)[146]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Real name, Enkil Dracula Valedamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Long quote overuse[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex, thank you for your message. I deleted the longest quotes and shortened others. I think, the article is now fully in line with Wikipedia:COPYQUOTE. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jusztina Szilágyi[edit]

To avoid a duplicated debate, I suggest that the first name of Vlad's wife, Jusztina Szilágyi, should be discussed on the relevant Talk page, here. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Anon, I think it is an important piece of information that he was named "Wladislaus Dragwlya" in the 15th century. If you want to mention this in the article, please use proper citation formats. However, he is always mentioned as Vlad in peer-reviewed books published in English, even in those which were written by Romanian historians. Consequently, we should prefer this form as per WP:Name. Please, make efforts to write edit summeries without making chauvinistic, biased statements. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I back Anon 100%. It is absolutely, 100% important to acknowledge how a person called themselves when they were alive, not how people foreign to them after their death had called them. The first thing you should learn if you want to write about history is the significance of endonym vs exonym (Matthew Czak vs Matus Cak for example). Vladislav is the endonym. Vlad Tepes is the exonym. Borsoka is totally absurd to claim that just because "books published in English, even those which were written by Romanian historians" say "Vlad" that it should be accepted. That is how false information spreads across more publications. And for Borsoka to make the claims that Anon's edits were "chauvinistic, biased" is just totally malicious and outrageous as there was no bias in Anon's contributions - in fact, acknowledging how a person called themselves is one of the most important facts we can add to the subject. Speaking of bias, perhaps Borsoka should admit why is removing written facts that point to Vlad the Impaler's Slavic name and Slavic background? Perhaps because of her Hungarian nationalism and deep hatred of Slavs? Yes Borsoka, you can admit it ... we know. It isn't hard to piece the puzzle together. I should also point out that (clearly) "Wladislaus" is Vladislav - it is just the Latin spelling of how the name sounds (see Slavic rulers named Rastislav whose names were spelled "Rastislaus" in Latin texts for example). It amazed me the enormous lack of intellectual qualifications that exists amongst people, even PhDs, who feel they should write about history and willfully or unknowingly spread lies and/or ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you list the books published in English which refer to him as Vladislav Dracula III? Would you refer to reliable sources stating that he was of "Slavic background"? Would you explain why do you think that his common name "Vlad the Impaler" should be deleted? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS regarding citation of English-language sources on English-language Wikipedia. Further, you included a personal attack in this edit summary, in clear violation of WP:NPA, and you have repeated and extended your attacks here. Continued violation of this policy could result in restriction of your editing privileges. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)