If Bram Stoker's Dracula did not already have a pale complexion, he certainly would have paled at hearing the atrocities of his alleged real-life counterpart, Prince Vlad Tepes, whose name is becoming as much of a household word.
Scholars Raymond T. McNally and Radu Florescu have been credited with bringing the fifteenth-century monarch to the attention of a modern world that merely considered Dracula a product of some writer's imagination. A number of biographers, however, from many different lands, have long chronicled the tales of Vlad III (or IV or V? There has been controversy over the number of Vlads up to Dracula). These historians presented varying accounts.
"Did Dracula really live? Was he actually a vampire? Did he drink blood?" These are the most frequent questions put to me, and I am so weary of them that one day I might say that Vlad the Impaler truly was one of the undead and still walks the Earth today (though the real Dracula was never associated with vampirism while he lived, some superstitious peasants in Transylvania fear that he does still stalk the populace or that his spirit haunts the island where he is said to be buried.)
Vlad Tepes, also known by his enemies as "Sir Stake," "The Berserker," and "The Bloodthirsty Monster" (while it has been stated that Dracula drank blood symbolically McNally and Florescu dispute it), Tepes is considered one of the most colorful and controversial figures in Romania's history.
He is colorful in that he is a major drawing factor in American and Western European tourism and controversial in that his background and image have often been confused and misinterpreted (the Romanians allude this to the novel and motion pictures. While they are clearly resentful of the "vampire" representation of whom they contend was a gallant hero, they still like to play on the myth for the sake of gaining the American dollar).
Yes, the Romanians do consider Dracula a great protector; an equivalent of George Washington who, like Vlad the Impaler, repelled an awesome invader and established a capital city.
There are some Romanian citizens, still, who regard the ruler as strictly a madman whose barbarianism could never excuse the so-called "defense" of the kingdom. This was because many of Dracula's own subjects were victims of his cruelties.
All concur that the Prince was a sadistic leader whose deeds or misdeeds were not easily surpassed by other monarchs, before during, or after. He perhaps would have made even Hitler wince.
Dracula was born in 1431 (500 years prior to the making of the first American Dracula film, which solidified our country's love affair with the Count) in a small town known as Sighisoara. The house of his birth, described by McNally and Florescu as a "typical German burgher's house," still stands today (a few heads popped out of the windows when I was there. No, they were not descendants of the Prince, but the men who maintain the place). A plaque hangs on the wall outside proclaiming that Vlad Dracul, Dracula's father, lived there in 1431.
During that same year, Dracula's family was invested with the Order of the Dragon by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund of Hungary. Those bestowed by the Order, founded in 1418 by Sigismundo enlisted in the defense of the sovereign of the Order and his family, battled the infidels (particularly the Turks, who threatened to overrun Eastern Europe and make it a Moslem state), and perpetuated the memory of the condemnation of the "heretic" Jan Hus at Constance in 1416.
Dracul (also a violent man, his name meaning "dragon" or "devil") was the illegitimate son of Mircea the Great, Prince of Wallachia. It should be mentioned at this point that the nation or Romania was not yet to come into existence until after World War I. Instead, the area consisted of three separate provinces Wallachia, Transylvania, and Moldavia.
In 1436, Dracul, who had become a military commander after receiving the insignia of the Dragon, ousted his half-brother, Aldea, from the Wallachian throne. He occupied it until 1442, then from 1443 to 1447.
Dracula (the "a" on the end of a name means "the son of") was the second born of the next generation. The eldest was Mircea, the favorite of Dracul who was to escape a fate that Dracula and younger brother, Radu, were soon to suffer. Later, another Vlad was born, who would become a monk and Wallachia's ruler in 1481.
The Turks, whom Vlad II and his heirs were bound by oath to oppose, had gained the upper hand against the Hungarians by conquering Serbia and Bulgaria. Indeed, Eastern Europe was again in jeopardy of being dominated by the Muhammadans, and Dracul's stronghold would naturally be included.
Following the death of Emperor Sigismund, Vlad II yielded to pressure and broke the trust placed in him. He signed an alliance with Murad II, the Turkish sultan, which allowed him to remain on the Wallachian throne if he agreed to assist the Turks in the looting and killing of his own people.
Janos Hunyady, the newly appointed governor of Hungary, was understandably upset with Dracul over this development and led an army into the Prince's land to depose him. Dracul and his family fled to Turkey when Hunyady's soldiers invaded, after which a new ruler, Basarab II, was placed on the throne.
A year later, with Turkish aid, Dracul was returned to power, but under certain conditions. One was that he pledge never again to participate in military action against Turkey, and that he offer yearly contingents of Wallachian children for the purpose of enlisting in the Turkish janissary corps.
In accordance with the second term, Dracula (at the time, age twelve) and Radu (age nine) were made hostages by the Turks to ensure Vlad II's good behavior (Mircea was allowed to stay, since he was the first heir to the throne). The Turks had planned to instruct the two Wallachian boys in the ways of their land, but would shape the elder one into a creature destined to cause much death and destruction (one might say that the Turks were creating a "Frankenstein monster").
Dracula felt betrayed, of course, by his father, and would remember his Turkish captors who mistreated him and his younger, weak-natured brother.
It was during this young, impressionable age that Dracula received a penchant for torture. The future impaler practically made a hobby out of killing, bribing his guards to bring him birds and other smaller animals to "stake" on small sticks. This could have suggested Renfield, the mental patient in Stoker's novel, who constantly pleaded with the attendants to bring him insects to consume.
Dracula's captors were amused and impressed by the lad's growing ferocity and felt that he would be ideal to serve in his father's place as Prince of Wallachia. They were also confident of Dracula's continued loyalty to them in spite of his belligerent attitude (Were they in for a rude awakening).
In the meantime, Dracula's father, in an attempt to renew his "Dragonist" oath, had put his own salvation and what he claimed his country's ahead of that of his two sons. Dracul and Mircea had launched a new offensive against the Turkish army, and it was a miracle that Dracula and Radu were not put to death because of it. When Dracul had later learned that the two boys were still alive, the Turks again sought a promise of obedience from him.
It was not too much later when Janos Hunyady, whose hatred for Dracul had intensified over the years due to pro-Turkish policies and political disputes, led another invading force into Wallachia. This time it was a success, as Vlad II and heir Mircea were now dead.
In 1448, young Dracula (who was alone; Radu chose to remain with Sultan Hurad) was given an officer's rank in the Turkish army. With help from his Moslem "friends," Dracula seized his late father's office.
The new sovereign was fearful of being murdered by the same conspirators who had done away with his family (some of Vlad II's own men had assisted Hunyady in the coup), so after two months, he fled to Moldavia where his uncle, Prince Bogdan II, ruled. Three years later, Dracula made an unlikely friend: Hunyady. The "Son of the Devil" apparently felt that he had little choice in joining with his father's killer, since Bogdan had just been assassinated by a foreigner and the Turks were again on the move after defeating Constantinople.
Neither Dracula nor Hunyady ever fully trusted each other. Relations had deteriorated, though, between Hunyady and his former protégé, Vladislav II, so Dracula turned out to be the only one he could rely on to help battle his enemies, the Turks.
With the fall of Constantinople, the new Turkish sultan had determined to destroy what was left of Eastern Europe, and Dracula was assigned by to defend the Transylvanian border. The position of military commander, as his father before him, made Dracula a candidate for the Wallachian throne, which he finally resumed by force in 1456 after Hunyady's death by the plague.
Dracula's reign of terror had actually commenced during this second "cycle." The Voivode had a good memory and demonstrated that he was not a forgiving person as he executed the boyars who plotted against his father. He also showed that he would never favor the Turks, as he always welcomed the opportunity to slay one or several.
One of the most popular stories about Vlad Tepes involved two Turkish Tourists who refused to remove their turbans when the Prince passed by on the street. They explained that it was against their custom. Dracula then informed them that he would like to strengthen their custom,so he ordered his men to nail the Turks' turbans to their heads.
Historical texts have been inconsistent on some of the accounts discussed thus far, but all agree on the viciousness of Prince Vlad Tepes, unparalleled by many.
As any student of Dracula should know, Vlad III's favorite form of execution was impalement on a wooden stake, a nostalgic remembrance of his childhood pastime. Death by this method was not always instantaneous, as the edge of the shaft was blunted and smeared with oil. With the intended victim's legs spread apart, the stake was usually driven up the anus until it emerged from the back of the neck.
Over 30,000 foreigners and Wallachians alike were put to death in this manner, and "The Berserker" was said to haven been present at all of the executions.
Dracula's feeling of being betrayed his mistreatment by the Turks, and his constant dread of assassination made him cynical, causing a low regard for human life.
Besides impalement, the Prince compelled others to acts of cannibalism; he killed babies, roasted them, and forced their mothers to eat them. (This was one trait that did not exist in the fictitious Dracula, for I have never seen a single movie or book where the familiar black-cloaked figure ever harmed or even threatened a child).
He also had his enemies and subjects hacked to pieces, and would never tolerate illicit sexual behavior, laziness among his people in civilian or military duties, or any form of criminal activity (even petty thieves were being impaled).
Vlad Tepes' defenders today insist that it was an era during which a monarch had to evoke fear and an evil reputation to ensure his continued authority and the salvation of his land.
The "evil reputation" certainly did prove its worth when Dracula had learned of an invading Turkish force which greatly outnumbered his own. He resorted to a form of "psychological warfare," whereby the Prince had thousands of his own countrymen impaled at that point on the border where the Turks were due to arrive.
The invaders who beheld the gruesome sight were sickened and horrified. They all retreated, afraid to face the man who had perpetrated such a foul act.
In the light of all this, it might be appalling to excuse Dracula's mass destruction of innocents for reasons of national survival. But many contend that such grisly actions were still necessary.
Dracula was also a religious man (the divine and the demonical in one) who believed that constructing churches and monasteries atoned for his sinfulness. The Voivode has been credited, incidentally, with preserving Christianity throughout Eastern Europe (!) by his unrelenting crusade against the Turks.
By the end of the "Bloodthirsty Monster's" second rule in 1462, the Turks had finally besieged his castle in the Carpathians and destroyed much of it. (It was totally destroyed by an earthquake in the early part of the twentieth century).
Dracula's first wife had committed suicide in preference to being captured by the Turks, but the Prince and some of his followers had managed to escape to Hungary. There, Vlad sought aid from King Matthais, who instead imprisoned the deposed leader. It was due to the numerous complaints against Dracula by the German inhabitants of Sibiu, a town long scourged by the Voivode.
So for the next fourteen years, Dracula remained a prisoner, eventually becoming a model one. Convinced of his rehabilitation, Matthias decided to reward the former monarch by helping him regain his leadership of Wallachia.
Dracula had also fallen in love with the King's daughter and married her, which required his conversion to Roman Catholic. Vlad Tepes had previously hated the Catholic Church, as he had been Eastern Orthodox (though Vlad III had still not been considered a vampire, a superstition of the time held that anyone excommunicated from the Catholic or Orthodox faiths would rise as one of the living dead !).
The "Berserker" made more enemies than ever before, including the Eastern Orthodox Church dignitaries for his entering into a "schismatic" church. Matthias did indeed manage to secure his son-in-law's old office for him, but it was to be short-lived. Dracula's third reign ended after only two months on December 26, 1476, during a Turkish invasion.
There are two versions of Dracula's death. Either he was beheaded by the Turks, or he was masquerading as one of the Turks to avoid capture and died at the hands of his own men who mistook him for the enemy.
Vlad Tepes is supposedly buried in a tomb on Snagov Island. An excavation in 1931 (now what was significant about that year?) failed to turn up his body, so it is theorized that he was interred elsewhere to fool grave robbers or is buried much deeper. The investigation is continuing.
Another common question asked is "does Dracula have any living descendants?" The last known direct descendants died in the seventeenth century, but as Vlad had more illegitimate children than he could count, it is a likelihood that several blood relatives are living.
Author Radu Florescu has been seen said to be indirectly descended from Dracula, and a Count Alexander Cepesi, who operate s a blood bank in Turkey, claims to be a descendant. According to The Dracula Book, by Don Glut, Cepesi says that he "grew up in the very castle where the original Count Dracula committed his heinous crimes." If that is true, he must have had an unhappy childhood, judging by the present state of the castle.
Clubs and travel agencies continue to offer "Dracula tours" of the area, and Romania enthusiastically welcomes them. One of the first was General Tourist "Spotlight on Dracula -- An Adventure in Transylvania," which comprised three weeks of travel to "Dracula" landmarks in Romania, Turkey, and England.
As stated earlier, the Romanians do protest Vlad Tepes' vampire image, believing it to be an American invention. Two people I met in the country, in fact, thought that Bram Stoker was an American.
But bear this in mind: in spite of their resentment of what they feel is a misrepresentation, the people of Romania are a friendly lot and love to see the Americans who come so far to see them.
One of my most interesting contacts was Sebastian, the caretaker of Dracula's tomb, who has been mentioned in a couple of texts. According to A Night in Transylvania, by Kurt Brokaw, he has been repeatedly asked if Bela Lugosi is buried in the crypt. Sebastian was apparently so weary of this that he told me that Dracula's spirit visits him every night (mind you, I did not ask him that silly question; it was merely a joke that he volunteers to all American and British tourists, seemingly).
Not many movies have ever focused on the real Dracula, although Christopher Lee did play Vlad Tepes in a documentary produced in 1972 entitled "In Search of Dracula," (not to be confused with Leonard Nimoy's "In Search Of" television program). Lee's resemblance to Vlad was considered uncanny; "the same face," was the remark given by one critic.
Vlad Tepes also had a "cameo" in Dan Curtis' version of "Dracula," starring Jack Palance. The role was certainly appropriate for Palance as he had, coincidentally, played Attila the Hun, another figure from Dracula's stomping grounds, in the 1954 film, "Sign of the Pagan."
Recent novels have featured the "reality" of Count Dracula by centering on his life as Prince Vlad. He has, however, been kept a "vampire" as most people still cannot disregard that identity.
One of such works was, Dracula Began, by Gail Kimberly (Pyramid, 1976), which contained a truly entertaining (though slightly altered) account of Dracula's boyhood while held in captivity by the Turks.
Others touch on the life of Vlad in, Crimson Kisses (by Asa Drake; Avon, 1981), The Dracula Archives (by Raymond Rudorff; Arbor House, 1971), Bloodright (by Peter Tremayne; Dell, 1977), and, Dracula, My Love (by Peter Tremayne; Dell, 1980).
Though Dracula has remained a vampire in all of these subsequent novels, could his literary image be slowly metamorphosing to that of his real-life counterpart? It might be considered unlikely, since America's attraction to the Count is based largely on his supernatural escapades.
Still, the history of one Vlad Tepes is an intriguing one and should continue to be related so that new generations can be aware that what is a fine classic is not totally steeped in fantasy.
And just how does one suppose the real Dracula would have reacted to being depicted as a vampire? Judging by his reputation for having been a lover of wit, he may have been greatly amused.
CONTINUE
