Topic: Mathias or Dracula

[Lumas]

Anyway thanks for the history lesson and all, but it still doesn't change the fact that the games say Drac was a sorceror long before 1476. The book doesn't mention Vlad practicing dark magic and summoning demons, right? Despite the novel being canon, I wonder how much of it they actually intended it to be. If it were to be made into a game, I'm sure they'll replace Quincy's bowie knife with the Vampire Killer, remove the London parts & Harker altogether, etc.

Another excerpt.

"That mighty brain and that iron resolution went with him to his grave, and are even now arrayed against us. The Draculas were, says Arminius, a great and noble race, though now and again were scions who were held by their coevals to have had dealings with the Evil One. They learned his secrets in the Scholomance, amongst the mountains over Lake Hermanstadt, where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due. In the records are such words as 'stregoica' witch, 'ordog' and 'pokol' Satan and hell, and in one manuscript this very Dracula is spoken of as 'wampyr,' which we all understand too well."


Scholomance as wiki states was fabled to be a legendary school of black magic run by the Devil, supposedly located near an unnamed lake in the mountains south of the city of Hermannstadt (now called Sibiu in Romanian) in the Transylvania region of Romania.

[Nagumo]

I already suspected that you were going to quote that but since this are only a few obscure references one would wonder how deep the connection really is. If you want to argue about what the writer's true intentions were you shouldn't just use the novel as a reference but also his notes and the sources he used to make up his story. He was so kind to list all of them as footnotes.

The only book Stoker ever read about Dracula was An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia and that book only mentions a "Viviode Dracula" three times, and two of them actually refer to Vlad Dracul. Stoker wrote in his notes what he thought was the most important of all this info and that was that Dracula means devil. That book was the only source of information the writer ever used and it never mentions the name "Vlad Tepes" or "the Impaler". So really the connection doesn't run any deeper than a name Stoker thought was cool. 

Also, don't be scared because I know all of this. I took this from a random website.       

[Lumas]

I dont really see any obscurity in either of those quotes they blatantly say that Dracula is Voivode Dracula from Romania meaning Vlad Tepes III and he reference some of his past therefore he may have written down the name because he sounded cool but he used Vlad as the model for this character.

[Nagumo]

No, the book doesn't say he is Vlad III only that he was an army commander/prince/ who had the title of Dracula. Not to mention that the source I metioned actually refers to both Vlad II and III so I can argue Dracula = Vlad II according to Bram Stoker. Prove me wrong.

I should also once again make clear that the writer knew nothing about Vlad Tepes aside from his title and that he was a voivode who fought against the Turks. However there have been other viovodes who fought against them long before Vlad Tepes did plus the fact that he and the novel Dracula share absolutely nothing in common aside from those similarities making it evident that A) Stoker's creation is most likely a fictional warlord who just happens to have the same name and B) there is no point in making this connection anyway.

Also just because in the novel they mention his name is Dracula doesn't mean he is the actual historical figure since it all depends on what the writer knows about him in this case assuming there were two historical Dracula's. You have to see it from the author's perspective.                         

[Lumas]

No, the book doesn't say he is Vlad III only that he was an army commander/prince/ who had the title of Dracula. Not to mention that the source I metioned actually refers to both Vlad II and III so I can argue Dracula = Vlad II according to Bram Stoker. Prove me wrong.

I should also once again make clear that the writer knew nothing about Vlad Tepes aside from his title and that he was a voivode who fought against the Turks. However there have been other viovodes who fought against them long before Vlad Tepes did plus the fact that he and the novel Dracula share absolutely nothing in common aside from those similarities making it evident that A) Stoker's creation is most likely a fictional warlord who just happens to have the same name and B) there is no point in making this connection anyway.

Also just because in the novel they mention his name is Dracula doesn't mean he is the actual historical figure since it all depends on what the writer knows about him in this case assuming there were two historical Dracula's. You have to see it from the author's perspective.                          

I could prove you wrong but Id rather have something else do it for me.

"Stoker came across the name Dracula in his reading on Romanian history, and chose this to replace the name (Count Wampyr) that he had originally intended to use for his villain. However, some Dracula scholars, led by Elizabeth Miller, have questioned the depth of this connection. They argue that Stoker in fact knew little of the historic Vlad III except for the name "Dracula." There are sections in the novel where Dracula refers to his own background, and these speeches show that Stoker had some knowledge of Romanian history. Stoker mentions the Dracula who fought against the Turks, and was later betrayed by his brother, historical facts which unequivocably point to Vlad III:

"Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when'' he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph!" (Chapter 3, pp 19) The Count's intended identity is later explicitly confirmed by Professor Van Helsing:

"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land." (Chapter 18, pp 145)

Vlad II wasnt betrayed by his brother he was in fact murdered by Vladislav II but there really isnt any mention of Vlad II's brother. EDIT: or if he ever had a brother I cant really seem to find any info that he had one.

 So that kills your silly argument that it couldve been Vlad II. And if he just read the name and thought it was cool then he would have just used the name and not use anything from his past.

[Lumas]

Oh I did find his brother his name was Alexandru I Aldea and he died partway through his rule and was replaced with Vlad II. There is no historical information stating anywhere that he betrayed Vlad II at any point of his life. But heres a tidbit about Vlad III brother

"However, in 1462 a massive Ottoman army marched against Wallachia, and Radu was commander of the Romanian Janissary. Vlad fled quickly to Transylvania fearing the Ottoman wrath. During his departure, he practiced a scorched earth  policy, leaving nothing of importance to be used by the pursuing Ottoman army. When the Ottoman forces approached Tirgoviste, it was said that thousands of Romanian muslims (men, women and children) were found to have been impaled by the forces of Vlad III."

Kinda sounds like his brother sold out his own people by leading an army there the to subdue them. Hmm I heard that somewhere before oh yeah right, Bram Stokers Dracula mentioned that.

[VGuyver]

I actually if you would compare Mathias and Copella's version of Dracula I think the latter has a better reason for renouncing god just because they mention that his wife's soul couldn't be saved because of the suicide and all while according to Lament (the manga) Mathias's wife died of uh tuberculosis. In both cases though I think their reasoning for their human genocide is way too exaggerated to be taken seriously and only makes them look egoistic.         

Mathias didn't commit genocide until much later down the road. And honestly, then it had good reason. He had mostly preoccupied himself with his immortality, continuing his research in alchemy, no real wars against humanity except he's grown to despise them, and has grown a superiority ego over the centuries. HE finnaly started his massacre's and war on humanity after his Human wife, reincarnation of the same woman who's death drover him insane in the first place was murdered, instead of simply dying from illness again. What really pissed him was that she was caring to people as a doctor and healer, and yet the called her a whitch and burned her to death on the stake... a horrible death like that for the most ignorant cowardly reasons cnvinced him humanity was worthless and an evil in it's own. So he starts the war.

Oh as for him being a strategist, yeah, Dracula shows no hint of that except in Simon's quest by cursing his body. At this point, his mind has been twisted and is no longer sane. I figure that as a factor for his illogical choices.

[Nagumo]

Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?

Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.

Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.              

@VGuyver

Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen.                     

[X]

The only book Stoker ever read about Dracula was An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia  and that book only mentions a "Viviode Dracula" three times, and two of them actually refer to Vlad Dracul. Stoker wrote in his notes what he thought was the most important of all this info and that was that Dracula means devil

Close Nagumo. The title Dracula means "Son of the Dragon" You could also argue that it means "son of the Devil". But that devil/Dragon relationship only exists because of the un-educated leaders of the roman catholic church. Dragons by nature are not evil as they claim. They've been around in folklore for thousands of years, long before the church itself existed. Dragons are of the serpent nature and the snake is one of the oldest symbols of creation and fertility. The Devil was created by the roman catholic hierarchy to be used as a terror-tactic to contol an illiterate and uneducated society. the church was also against the whole idea of natural practic and branded it heracy. This includes worshiping the symbol of creation and fertility; the snake/serpent i.e. the Dragon. Whom-ever has the gold makes the rules.

-X

[Nagumo]

Heheh I know but that was just what Stoker wrote.

[Lumas]

Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?

Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.

Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.              

@VGuyver

Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen.                     

Guess you missed that whole thing about a voivode i put up early, allow me to refresh your memory.

Voivode[1] is a Slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force. The word gradually came to denote the governor of a province; the territory ruled or administered by a voivode is known as a voivodeship. In English, the title is often translated as "prince", "duke", or, as in Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, "count". The Polish title is sometimes rendered in English as "palatine" or "count palatine", in charge of a palatinate. In Slavic terminology, the rank of a voivode is in some cases considered equal of that of a German Herzog.

And that whole wonderful man thing probably meant that Romania still supports Vlad as one of their greatest and most beloved Princes.

Also take into consideration that this book was written in 1897 in Ireland perhaps at that time there wasn't a lot on Vlad at said time. Plus Vlad only inspired the creation of Dracula his model was used to create a fictional character. And it does mention his past but only slightly, did Bram wish everyone to love Vlad? No he wanted his book to sale so he could become a famous author, he wanted people to love his character Dracula not the real Vlad because a lot of people probably wouldn't have liked Vlad very much because he murdered shit tons of people. Vlad was only the inspiration that would lead into a completely different character and by different I mean he drank the blood of the innocent to live, slept in a coffin, and turned into a bat. And also did your source know Bram? Is she/he a vampire too? lol seriously not buying that.

And another thing Im not seeing any facts to back up  your theories. I got plenty of written down facts supporting me which whether you like it or not he wrote down occurrences of Vlad's life, mention his own brother betraying him, even used the Slavic term for prince when he couldve used the English version, even came out in the book and said "Hes Dracula". You got a bunch of "theories" with nothing substantial that has been written down as fact other then your "source" who acts like they were alive in 1897 and watched his every move and claimed he only read one book about Vlad but actions speak louder than words and he wrote down things that actually occurred in his life so guess what that means? He did some more research than what was placed in his notes meaning he must have been too lazy to take notes. Or maybe he didn't want people knowing he used Vlad III because at the time his name was so obscured no one knew who the hell he was until sometime after this novel was published. And he didnt want to lose creditability as a writer by using someone who already existed instead of creating a character from scratch like Sir Author Conan Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes.
 

That would be like me deciding to write a werewolf novel where Hitler is the main werewolf but instead I use the name Adolf because i dont really want people knowing I used him directly. I write down in my notes some tidbit about reading one book that mentions his name three times. So I write the book and actually put down historical occurrences that point to him being the honest to god jew hatin Hitler but not everything because I dont want people thinking I'm trying to ride his tail coats too much. Do you know what that means? It means I did a little more research thats what that means. And you are gonna seriously argue because I'm lazy and didnt place it down in my notes that Hitler isn't whom I got inspirations for the jew hatin werewolf I created for my book?

So you can harp all you want like some 911 conspiracy theorist but unfortunately me and the rest of the world disagree with you along with Bram's own written down words that pointed directly to Vlad III do too. And thats what this comes down if it brightens your world up that Vlad III isn't what inspired Bram's Dracula then by all means go for it, I'm not gonna stop ya. Have at it.

[RegalX7]

Mathias didn't commit genocide until much later down the road. And honestly, then it had good reason.

Good reason for slaughtering innocent people...?

[crisis]

We dunno if they were innocent... they coulda been asshole sinners their entire lives lol

[Nagumo]

Lumas wait...

I thought we were arguing that Bram Stoker intented the two to be the same character in his novel. I never claimed he wasn't inspired by Vlad Tepes. But inspired by a character and being actually said character are two different things in fiction.     

[Vatican29]

Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?

Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.

Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.              

@VGuyver

Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen.                     

Your buddy has got it right.  Bram's "Dracul" and Vlad are closer than you think.  The History Channel is ridden with interesting trinkets of info.