#justromanianthings

Given the number of bad takes regarding Dracula/Vlad Țepeș/Romanian history in general I’ve seen around here lately, I feel compelled to write this post. 

Let’s start by getting one thing straight: the fact that Bram Stoker used Vlad Țepeș (the Impaler) as the inspiration for Dracula is NOT fact! It’s largely speculation presented as fact, and it’s become so ingrained in our collective consciousness we don’t even question it anymore! Hell, I thought it was fact myself until I researched this stuff for uni and came across some interesting information.

I won’t write an essay here, because Elizabeth Miller already did so! You can read it for free with a Jstor account. 

But I will summarize the main points:

Neither the novel, nor Stoker’s Notes about the novel mention Vlad, Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler, impalings or any allusions to them. There is only the mention of Dracula, which you might say identifies him 

          EXCEPT

Stoker himself listed his sources which he used to write the novel! This is available information! The most important one is a book called An Account of  the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia by William Wilkinson (1820) where, in the 2 key passages he used 1) the name “Dracula” is mentioned 3 times and twice it actually refers to Vlad’s father and 2) Stoker plain writes that he picked the name because “Dracula means the Devil in Wallachian”. Basically, he went with “that sounds evil and ominous, let’s go with that.”

Ostensibly, Wilkinson’s book does not reference Vlad, Vlad Tepes , Vlad the Impaler, or any atrocities. The only references are to “Dracula” and “Voivode”.

Stoker had been planning to write a vampire novel BEFORE any of this; originally, it was going to be called “Count Wampyr” (but presumably he realised how stupid that sounds.)

There is a lot of speculation about the rest of his sources, including the famous pamphlet (yes that one) which was at the British Museum where he did research for the novel and his Hungarian friend Arminius Vambery who might have told him about Vlad but there is no evidence to support these claims, apart from “well, it sounds plausible!”

None of the details about Dracula that are in the book match Vlad. That there is no castle (his or otherwise) in Borgo Pass (Tihuța Pass now) is already known. His description, down to height and build, is completely different. He doesn’t mention his impalings, in fact Van Helsing claims he was a “wonderful man” in life. If Stoker had been basing him on Vlad, then he would have known what he was famous for - and it’s very likely he would have had Van Helsing, the Dracula expert, mention it. You might argue “well that’s just artistic license!” and I argue it’s MORE likely he had no idea about any of this stuff. 

In conclusion, using the real historical Vlad Țepeș and Dracula as synonymous and talking about how he must have drunk blood because a Victorian Irishman's fantasy novel is practically taken as historical fact has no basis in history, nor is there proof that said Victorian Irishman even based his character on the Wallachian voivode.