Wasnt Count Dracula a Christian hero instead of a villian?
Im sure many of us have seen the movies, especially one with Gary oldman.
It was the dark days of the 15th century as Mongol Turks inspired with their new found Islamic religion are sweeping into Eastern Europe with vast and unprecedented force.
They strike at the heart of Christian orthodoxy in Kosovo and Transylvania, but only one Romanian noble man named Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia stands in their way
So why is the Count Dracula vilified? Surely he was trying to save Eastern Europe from the torment of enduring the next 500 years of Islamic rule?
So do you think Bram Stoker (Irish writer) needs to have his work updated and put Dracula in a positive light?
Surely how many of you now would accept a Mongol army of savages ripping through your street, raping, looting, burning, cutting of hands and heads of people and making you bend down and kneel towards their god?
Or being made to go hungry when they do that thing, or being forced to pay tax?
not I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_Dracula
Tagged with: 15th century • bram stoker • christian orthodoxy • Count Dracula • dark days • dracula • eastern europe • gary oldman • irish writer • islamic religion • islamic rule • kosovo • mongol army • noble man • prince of wallachia • savages • torment • transylvania • unprecedented force • wikipedia
Filed under: Count Dracula
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Fiction is fiction; history is history. What Bram Stoker created was fiction no matter how you look at it. He doesn’t need to have his work updated because fiction is a product of someone’s imagination and imagination doesn’t have to be inspired or supported by reality.
From an historical point of view, you are correct. The main "occupation" of Vlad Dr?culea was to protect his country from the Ottoman invasion and suzerainty. He succeeded in doing that and, if some historical sources are to be believed, he also succeeded to "clean" Valahia of thieves, murderers, robbers etc. His method was impaling. Cruel, indeed, but it worked. It was what fit those times.
Now, you have this point of view. But most people are attracted to the story of the "heartless murderer" or "the vampire". They are right in their own way, though their way of thinking is more "commercial".
The story of "Dracula" provides much more entertainment than the story of a prince forced to protect his country against the Turks.
And the purpose of fiction is, mostly, to entertain.
P.S. You should, however, be proud of your opinion and of managing to see everything from the prince’s point of view too, unlike most of the world. It takes a bit of "something" to realize that there isn’t a single, general, universal truth.
for your information, that subplot was invented by the movie. it doesn’t appear anywhere in Bram Stoker’s novel.
Vlad the impaler…the basis for Dracula…was a cold-blooded murderer who enjoyed watching torture and death.
He was a crusader who renounced his faith due to the excessive losses he endured. And also, the historical character he is based off of was a REAL bloodthirsty monster, and if thats a christian, then I’m Mickey Mouse.
Vlad the Impaler got his name by impaling people from between their legs up through their body, and then left them up on the poles. Thousands of poles were erected with bodies impaled on them. I can’t find anything Christian about that.
Try the same argument, but substitute George W. Bush.
Republicans call him a Christian hero, too, but most of the world thinks of him as a monster who invaded a foreign country, overthrew a sovereign government, murdered the country’s president on international TV, and has since killed nearly a million (1,000,000) innocent people in order to steal their oil.
Who’s the hero now? Vlad, the (anecdotal) source for Dracula (the Dragon) or Bush?