Was dracula a real person? [a bit like jesus?]?

Answer 1

Dracula is on the stories for a child. No reality, A squirel is a dracula. Jesus is the Son of God.,
jtm

Answer 2

Dracula was based on a real person - you've heard of Vlad the Impaler (Vlad III)? Well if not - don't worry he was an evil sadist who impaled people on spikes!

Anyway...

"Vlad the Impaler, a.k.a. Vlad III, Dracula, Drakulya, or Tepes, was born in late 1431, in the citadel of Sighisoara, Transylvania, the son of Vlad II or Dracul, a military governor, appointed by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund. Vlad Dracul was also a knight in the Order of the Dragon, a secret fraternity created in 1387 by the Emperor, sworn to uphold Christianity and defend the empire against the Islamic Turks. Transylvania, along with Moldavia, and Wallachia, are now joined together as Romania. The name Dracul can be interpreted in two ways, the first translation from Romanian would be "Dragon", but it sometimes also means "Devil". Vlad was not called Tepes, which means ""spike" in Romanian, until after his death; instead, he was known as Vlad Dracula, the added "a" meaning "son of", so essentially, throughout his life, he was known as the "son of the Devil"" See the link below:

Jesus Christ was a real person who lived on earth 2,000 + years ago! He lived a perfect life and died an atoning death to set people free from the wrath of God and their own sin! Christ is far greater than Vlad could ever be!

Answer 3

Dracula was written Bram Stoker. It is not meant to be a true account of real events.

Indeed, it is unknown whether Vlad Dracula was the actual inspiration for Stoker. It has been argued that it was the name rather then the actual historical person that inspired the author. Stoker had, indeed, very few resources on Vlad Tepes, so that may explain any difficulty he had. However, there is one huge mistake which leads historians to leap on the idea that it was merely the name that inspired Stoker: his Count is a Szekely, a people believed to be descended from the Huns. Vlad Tepes was a Wallachian.
In addition, Stoker's Dracula was spending his time mostly in Wallachia or later, a prison in Hungary. He was born in Transylvania, and was a lord of Transylvania but was then prince of Wallachia and only visited his birth place to impale a few thousand people and then leave. So the bond between him and Transylvania is very weak - him being historically a Wallachian and spending very little time in Transylvania.

Answer 4

I remember as a child I believed Jesus, Santa and the Easter Bunny were myths told to kids by grown ups to trick kids into behaving. I cannot remember if I ever believed Dracula was real but I did believe in Batman and tried to get into the TV to ride in the bat mobile.
The Dracula of popular culture is an antihero many use to honor their darkside that is related to Vlad Tepish but no longer in an objective completely factual way.
Vlad was a church hero for killing many non-Christians in the post crusading days when Ottoman Turks were fighting Christendom for land and resources. He was interred in an Eastern European church but when the grave was opened some time later no body was found.

Answer 5

Dracula is a Mythfical character But having said that he was based on Vlad the inpaler

Answer 6

Dracula was based on Vlad The Impaler, a real historical character.

Answer 7

Dracula is a fictitious character based on a real man. Vlad the Impaler was a vicious warrior who lived in a Transylvanian castle. He is reported to have drunk the blood of his victims.
Check him out on www.vladtheimpaler.com

Answer 8

The original story of Dracula was listed as fictional.

Answer 9

No, Dracula was a fictitious character. I know some people claim that so was Jesus, but everyone (excluding yourself, apparently), knows Dracula was fictitious, were as many, many people believe Jesus was factual.

Answer 10

Paul did not reject the actual international. He did not meet Jesus in man or woman earlier he died, yet he did meet Jesus after his resurrection, it really is the reason it seems to you that he 'renounced any expertise of Jesus by human components'. He develop into purely being basic about how he met him. As for issues seen and unseen, Paul isn't rejected this life (he has plenty to assert about it), yet he's refuting the theory that this life is all there is. This life ought to be seen contained in the mild of our eternal destiny, and that is at the same time as issues are going to be suitable and done (fairly than in this life). yet Paul rejected any recommendations that the actual international did not count number. His writings are finished of his arguments hostile to that concept. So for sure Paul would have common the strolling, speaking, genuine life Jesus. it really is the Jesus he preached.