Updated: How the Muslims Killed Dracula


Vlad Țepeș (Dracula) Source: Wikipedia

Author’s Note 10-10-2014: I wrote “How the Muslims Killed Dracula” in 2010 in hopes of telling the little known story of an unsung hero, Radu cel Frumos the Voivod and warrior of Wallachia who led the battle against the genocidal mania of his own brother, Vlad Ţepeş, known in infamy as Dracula. Since then, the article has been shared thousands of times, translated into multiple languages and built upon by other talented authors with greater detail than presented in my article. Unfortunately, it has also been copied not so discretely or elegantly without any credit to me. In one instance it was even plagiarized by an infamous sympathizer of terrorism twisting the information in the article for his nefarious ends. Simply put —mostly good, but occasionally bad— it got around. I thank you for that and I am sure Radu and his dear friend Sultan Mehmet II thank you as well.

Who would have thought that 117 years after Dracula was introduced to the western world by Bram Stoker he would ever be seen as a hero. But, sadly, in today’s geopolitical climate and all its medieval saber rattling it seems that anyone who ever brutally massacred Muslims will be reinvented as a hero. But this weekend a seemingly ridiculous sci-fi/quasi-historical film that butchers the historical narrative of Vlad Ţepeş and completely reverses the antagonists with the protagonists will be hitting a theater near you. The film tries to evoke parallels to Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” by painting a picture of an invading army, who happen to be Muslims, being opposed by a local prince who must resort to the most grotesque forms of violence in order to repel them. As many of you may be seeing the film —though I actually hope you don’t— I’d like you to take some points into the theater with you:

The film depicts an invading Muslim army demanding the children of the poor conquered Christians from whom Vlad Ţepeş (whom I will henceforth refer to as Dracula) supposedly rises as a rebel leader. This is pure nonsense.

Dracula’s father Vlad Dracul II and their clan, the House of Drăculești, had been dutiful allies of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Turks actually fought John Hunyadi, the bitter enemy of the House of Drăculești, in order to place Vlad Dracul II upon the throne. So, not only were the Ottoman Turks not the enemies of Dracula’s family, they actually fought to put them in power. (As an aside, John Hunyadi is the patriarch of the Corvinus family who are portrayed as vampire royalty in the “Underworld” films.)

Furthermore, the father of Dracula himself offered the Ottoman Turks the military service of Wallachia’s young boys to train in the Ottoman Turkish military which was, by far, the greatest military in the world at that time. Not only that, he even offered his own two sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve in their army and to be raised as Muslims. You can read about their childhood in Ottoman Turkish military service in my article.

So why did Dracula rise up against the Ottomans? The opportunist that he was, the reason is simple: Gold. Even though the Christians had lost nearly every single Crusade against the Muslims, in 1459 at the Council of Mantua, Pope Pius II called for yet another Crusade against the Muslims. At that time, the Muslim world was championed by the Ottoman Empire. Pope Pius II gave Matthias Corvinus, Dracula’s rival and son of John Hunyadi who was Dracula’s father’s rival, an astounding amount of gold. No less than 40,000 gold pieces which was enough, in and of itself, to raise and build a whole new army and navy. Dracula simply wasn’t going to let his rival get all the pie to himself. It was at this point that Dracula took the House of Drăculești from being allies of the Ottomans to being their enemies.

We often bemoan the negative portrayal of Muslims in film and television. We get angry when we see absurd portrayals of our prayers and traditions on shows like “Homeland”. But who is to blame when we have absolutely no presence in popular media? I’m sorry to say, we are ultimately to blame. If we will not get involved in and excel in the media from journalism to producing, acting and directing and the plethora of niches in-between and beyond, then we risk our stories almost certainly being told by those who do not favor us. Case in point, in the 4 years since my article was written, I’ve had multiple hit-and-run queries to join an effort to tell this amazing story of the real historical Dracula in film. But in the end, no Muslim, nor even parties sympathetic to just plain telling the truth, ever took up this project. So guess what happened? “Dracula Untold.” That was an opportunity lost. But this is a story that has been told countless times over. It’s not too late for Radu, the heroic brother of Dracula, to have his day.


Originally Posted November 2010 

Born in the Ottoman Principality of Wallachia, Romania in 1435 AD, he was known as Radu al III-lea cel Frumos to his Romanian countrymen, Yakışıklı Radu Bey to the Turks, Radu al-Wasim to the Arabs, and Radu the Handsome in English. This ally and childhood friend of Sultan Mehmet II was instrumental in the conquest of Constantinople for Islam. Radu’s participation in that conquest ensured that Mehmet II would go down in history as “Fatih,” or “Conqueror.” Radu was the Ottomans’ secret weapon against the Safavids to the East and the Serbs, Romanians and Hungarians to the West. The Muslim world owes much to this hero of Islam, yet they recorded little other than cursory references to him, perhaps for fear of taking away from Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s limelight. The Byzantines recorded Radu as a reviled despot due to their hatred for his conversion to Islam and instrumental role in ending the Byzantine Empire.

Yet, this Ottoman general had a greater war, a war against darkness. He hunted the very progenitor of the vampire legend who impaled his enemies and drank their blood – Vlad al III-lea Ţepeş, also known as Vlad Drăculea, who would go down in infamy as, simply, Dracula. The character of Professor Abraham Van Helsing was no more than a figment of Bram Stoker’s terrifying imagination, but Sultan Mehmet II and Radu cel Frumos were perhaps the first and only true vampire hunters in history.

The Blood Brothers

Looking back, Radu’s devotion to Islam and to Sultan Mehmet II could be traced to the political alliance of their respective fathers before them. Vlad II from the House of Drăculeşti (“House of the Dragon”) was an ally and vassal of Sultan Mehmet’s father, Sultan Murad II. Vlad II had 4 sons: Mircea II, Vlad IV Călugărul (“The Monk”), Vlad III who would come to be known as Dracula, and Radu III cel Frumos (“The Handsome”). As a gesture of unity with the Sultan, Vlad II offered his sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve the Ottoman Sultan. Under the Janissaries they studied the Qur’an, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Islamic Theology and Jurisprudence, and, coveted above all, Turkish military strategy and tactics of war.

The Ottoman special forces who held a higher status both militarily as well as socially than the rank and file were the Janissaries and the Sipahis. The Janissaries were the elite infantry of the Ottoman military as well as the personal bodyguards of the Sultan and his family. The Sipahis were the elite cavalry who surrounded the Sultan in battle and would be sent to deal with the most stubborn of adversaries. They were the commandos and special forces of their day. Though the Sipahis were almost exclusively Turkic in origin as demanded by Sultan Mehmet II himself in his treatise of law entitled Kanun Nameh-e-Sipahi (“Law Book of the Sipahis”), the Janissaries, within whose ranks Dracula and Radu found themselves, were conversely converts to Islam.

The young Dracula continually abused and rebelled against his hosts earning himself imprisonment and castigation. Due to the heavy handedness of the Turks in response to his insolence, he developed a compounded and complex series of grudges. He hated his father for allying with the Turks, which he saw as a betrayal of the Order of the Dragon to which his father had sworn an oath. The Order of the Dragon was a Christian fraternity whose sole aim was to wipe out Islam from the Balkans forever. Dracula hated Radu for his successes and the favor the Turks bestowed upon him. He was filled with jealousy for the then young Mehmet II who, like him, was a prince, but, very unlike him, lived in splendor. He was also jealous of his brothers Mircea and Vlad the Monk due to what he perceived as his father’s preference for them. His sentiments for Mircea however, would teeter between jealousy and awe. It is from him that the young Dracula learned the terror tactic of impaling thousands to create forests of the dead.

Radu remained faithful to Islam and the Sultan and spent his entire life in battle on the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, vanquishing the most difficult adversaries of the Empire. His natural knack for battle was unparalleled even amongst the Janissaries and elite Sipahis of the Ottoman military, and he would be called upon frequently to subdue any foe that seemed insurmountable. It is reported that he turned the very course of Near Eastern history when he stopped the mighty Ak Koyunlu from overrunning the Ottomans, an event that, if not stopped, would have definitely changed the faces of both the Middle East and Europe today. For this very reason, he was called upon to face the threat from his homeland of Wallachia that neither the elite Janissaries nor the Sipahis could route.

The Conquest of Constantinople

“On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.” (George Sphrantzes, 1401-1478, Byzantine Christian chronicler and witness of the fall of Constantinople)

It was a time of relief and rejoicing. It was a relief for the inhabitants of Constantinople who expected a prompt culling following the fall of their city. It was a time of celebration for the entire Muslim world for this historical conquest of a city that has remained, to this very day, the capital of the Turks. Yet as Sultan Mehmet II rode into the city victorious, a glance over to his childhood friend and chief of the Janissaries, Radu cel Frumos, son of Vlad II Duke of Wallachia, may have served as a sobering reminder that to the North, beyond the spoils of Byzantium, their fiercest enemies lay in wait. Among those enemies was the most feared of them all, Dracula, who just so happened to be Radu’s own brother.

The Rise of Dracula

Opportunistic betrayal was the way of Wallachia’s rulers and in one such brief betrayal, Vlad II silently allowed his older sons, Mircea and Vlad IV, to launch an insurrection after which Mircea impaled all his prisoners upon stakes. The young Dracula loved the sight of this and later joined Mircea in further insurrections against the Ottomans as well as the rival Dăneşti clan supported by the Hungarian warlord, John Hunyadi. Ultimately, Hunyadi overran Dracula’s father, slew him in the marshes of Bălteni and blinded and buried Mircea alive at Târgovişte. Hunyadi installed a Dăneşti prince, Vladislav II, over Wallachia. In his ambition and lust for power, Dracula put aside any vengeful sentiments for his slaughtered father and brother and allied with Hunyadi and served him as an adviser. As John Hunyadi went to face the Turks at Belgrade in modern day Serbia, Dracula attacked and slew Vladislav and took the throne for himself. As fortune would have it, a plague broke out amongst Hunyadi’s camp, infecting him which lead to his death. Sultan Mehmet was severely wounded in the battle. These events left Dracula to rule Wallachia uninterrupted for 6 years. It was the only time he ruled his home for so long.

The Impaler

“I have killed men and women, old and young… We killed 23,884 Turks and Bulgarians without counting those whom we burned in their homes or whose heads were not cut by our soldiers.” (Dracula, in a letter to Matthias Corvinus bragging of his tyranny)

As Sultan Mehmet approached what appeared to be a fetid balding forest of rotting trees in the distance he soon realized the horror of what he approached. They were so close to their destination – the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște -that he was in no mood for this puzzling sight. But the figures became more clear as the steeds in the cavalry grew unruly and the infantry felt ill. Before him stood 20,000 impaled bodies of innocent men, women and children, all victims of Dracula in that winter of 1462.

Dracula’s Muslim upbringing, albeit abandoned in deference to opportunity, and fluency in Turkish enabled him to move about the Ottomans’ most secured camps freely as a Turk without being noticed. This had deadly consequences for the Muslims. Dracula had entered Serbia with his men all dressed as Turkish Sipahis and slaughtered all the Muslim villagers, and those non-Muslims friendly to them that they could find. The intent was to leave a horrifying memento for Sultan Mehmet whom they knew to be soon taking their capital city. They erected this unholy monument in a bid to alarm the Sultan and terrorize his troops in hopes that they might turn around and retreat home.

What is remarkable is that there are no records of mass desertion of Ottoman troops after witnessing this. They pressed on unflinchingly. However, some historians have suggested that Sultan Mehmet II lost his taste for hunting down the ‘vampire’ following this invasion of Wallachia and left the task up to the only one who was capable of hunting down Dracula and killing him. After taking the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște, Mehmet returned home, leaving the hunt to Radu. After all, it would take someone who knew the mind of Dracula to defeat him, and none fit this bill better than his own brother.

This event earned Dracula the name of Vlad Ţepeş, the Romanian word “Ţepeş” meaning “Impaler”. Legend has it that if you look closely at the word you can see Dracula’s fangs dangling beneath as a hidden warning to the vampire’s terrible lust for blood.

Radu vs. Dracula: Brothers in Blood

As Târgoviște was taken, Dracula fled towards Transylvania in hopes of finding refuge with John Hunyadi’s son Matthias Corvinus. As was typical of Dracula’s opportunism and lack of reverence for religion, he offered to become Catholic in order to win Corvinus’ favor. He scorched the earth and slaughtered all the living in his path leaving a wake of desolation and writhing impaled bodies. He would not give up his homeland to the Muslims that easily. He began a beleaguering campaign of guerilla warfare that the elite Ottoman Sipahis could not endure. It is said he slaughtered 15,000 of the Ottoman soldiers in one single night. Still, as the mightiest of the Ottomans fled, Radu was undeterred seemingly driven by what can only be interpreted as an austere piety, to end the bloody reign of his haplessly misguided brother. None remained to fight Dracula save Radu and his fellow Romanian Muslim Janissaries.

The brothers fought lingering battles for the throne of Wallachia and Radu’s control of the region increased staggeringly with Dracula receiving less and less support from Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. In a strange twist of fate, Corvinus, the one to whom Dracula retreated, had him imprisoned for 12 years on charges of high treason. The people of Wallachia and their Christian nobles had enough of Dracula’s terror and put their support behind Radu who was pronounced Voivod, Prince and Ruler of Wallachia in 1462. Radu ruled the land prosperously for 11 years until his death while Dracula wasted away in a Budapest prison patiently waiting to rise again from the darkness.

Dracula’s Release and Final Battle

After Radu’s death in 1473, Dracula was released from prison. He immediately assembled an army and invaded Bosnia, slaughtering its Muslim population and impaling 8,000 on stakes in a forest of human bodies. Once again, Dracula had arisen from the darkness with the objective of eliminating Islam from the Balkans forever. He finally acquired the throne of Wallachia after his departed brother, but only for a month. Sultan Mehmet invaded Wallachia to remove this profanity from the throne his dear friend Radu had vacated in death. In 1476 the forces of Sultan Mehmet faced the forces of Dracula in Bucharest, Romania. Dracula’s army was overrun in a blitz and all were killed, including Dracula himself. The vampire had been slain. News of this did not suffice. His head was cut off and preserved in a jar of honey and sent to Constantinople. There, in a fitting end, Dracula’s head was impaled upon a stake in the center of Constantinople for all to see. There was to be no doubt or mystery.

The Muslims had finally, at last, killed Dracula.


References

  • Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad Ţepeş, Kurt W. Treptow
  • Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula, Kurt W. Treptow
  • The Complete Dracula, Radu Florescu, Raymond T. McNally
  • Vlad Ţepeş, Prince of Walachia, Nicolae Stoicescu
  • Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah  fi-l `Usur al-Wusta (Arabic), Dr. Mahmud al-Huwayri
  • Al-`Uthmaniyin fi-l Tarikh wal-Hadharah (Arabic), Dr. Muhammad Harb
  • Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah (Arabic), Dr. Ali Hassoun
  • Al-Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih (Arabic), Dr. Sayyid Ridwan `Ali
Print Friendly

99 Comments

  1. Humaira says:

    Now showing in cinema . Dracula Untold .

  2. Vladimir Pushkin says:

    You’re statements that Dracula abandoned the Muslim faith for Christianity only because of opportunity is not based in any historical fact. In fact the most reputable historical information all lends to the credence that Dracula chose Christianity because he himself was repulsed by Muslims. And it is well documented that he and his brothers were forced and essentially sold to the Ottoman Empire as young boys and were prisoners forced against their wishes. Later Dracula abandoned and fought them for his own belief system and religious faith.

    • Jinan says:

      Vladimir,

      You say that what the author says is not based on historical fact when his article is meticulously referenced using historical sources. You have yet to provide evidence on the historical information you have. If we are going to have this discussion we should at least try to be academic and not polemical.

    • Shibli Zaman says:

      Mr. Pushkin,

      As Jinan has mentioned, everything in the article is very thoroughly referenced and all the books in the English language which I have cited are readily available through various academic libraries and even on Amazon.com.

      I find it strange that you said: “it is well documented that he and his brothers were forced and essentially sold to the Ottoman Empire as young boys and were prisoners forced against their wishes.”

      If it is so “well documented” then would you care to share any of that information? It would be truly ironic for you to question what I have copiously provided references for only to yourself make a completely unfounded claim in the complete absence of any evidence. But I am afraid that is exactly what has transpired here. Thank you.

    • Ephiopian guy says:

      As we know Vldimir Pushkin , as most russians consider hima as the gratest founder of russian literature was the grandson of Ephioan muslim,bought be Russian csar Petr 1 (was the granson of Georgian King )andn the greates gran son Ivan Grozniy,who was as the son of person from Golden Horde,converted to Christianity.Russians always hate muslims and especially Turks.I would as the question to you.Puskin priased himself as the great lover of Islam,Lev Tolstoy, annafemed- removed from Christianity due to love to Islam, and Tugeniyev,whose origin derives from Turkish-Golden Horde, hate Islam and Turkish people .Why? if You have close very close blood ties coming from centuries.Why You hate Islam, when All greatest writers of Russia always admire and love Islam.

  3. As salam and humble greetings,

    Just watched ‘D Untold’ with my wife a few hours back. I was explaining to her that events and characters in the film were conflated, exaggerated and simply made up. And, I’m not even a full-fledged historian!

    This is a breath of fresh air. Your analysis and interpretation of albeit limited knowledge of the subject matter is a testament to the Muslim tradition of seeking the ultimate truth.

    Ultimately, the story of ‘Dracula’ will be told and retold until God knows when…

    Thank you for trying to approach this subject from a more academic and measured viewpoint.

    Let the discussion continue sans the Hollywood big-budget small-story popcorn-movie treatment!

  4. NAI says:

    As Salaam,
    Jazakallah hu khayran kathira for all the time and effort spent for such interestingly written, researched backed history of Drackula and the significant role Muslims played in battling against this form of darkness to mankind. My hope for your article to be widely spread throughout available media. The least we can do to minimise the act of romanticizing Dracula and his species alike.

  5. Imran of Rahman says:

    Truth will always prevail and falsehood is destined to perish!
    Thank you for the well researched and written article. Blessings on all conveyors and sustainers of humanities truths. Amein.

  6. Greene says:

    Amazing! Thank you for this article.

  7. Adrian says:

    The assumption is that Vlad rose up against the ottomans for gold. I took the time to read the whole text. You forgot to mention the part where the ottomans were invading a foreign land across the Danube not to build houses, to help building hospitals and schools, to water the cattle and to tend the crops… the plain truth is that they were in fact invading for gold – jizya.

    It is not your fault as a descendant of the turks and not my fault either as a romanian, but try to abstain from portraying the ottoman empire as a civilizing force and Vlad as a blood thirsty tyrant. The truth is that Vlad was a small ruler trying to resist the ottoman’s horde expansion (expansion= need for more gold to pay expenses) by any means. He did that quite successful for some time.
    The historical fact is not about a bloody tyrant, it is about a small ruler with a small army of peasants resisting the mighty horde of invaders or die trying. He did just that… died trying.

    • Shibli Zaman says:

      Adrian, you say you “took the time to read” but then immediately say “the ottomans were…in fact invading for gold – jizya.” This means you probably didn’t even read up to even the third paragraph. Had you actually bothered to read that far you would have read that the Ottomans didn’t conquer Romania and annex it. The House of Drăculești was allied with the Ottomans and the Ottomans actually fought John Hunyadi to put Vlad Dracul, Vlad Ţepeş’s father, upon the throne. If it weren’t for the Ottoman’s Vlad Ţepeş would have never been a prince in the first place and he would have been a groveling subject of John Hunyadi and both the Houses of Hunyadi and Basarab.

      The only time the Ottoman’s invaded was when Vlad Ţepeş rebelled. And then what did they do? Annex Romania? They could have easily, but they didn’t. They placed Vlad Ţepeş’s brother, Radu, upon the throne to rule as Voivod of Wallachia.

      I really shouldn’t have to give you “Cliffnotes”. The article isn’t really that long. Please give it a read because I know you haven’t read it yet.

      • Adrian says:

        @Shibli Zaman
        As I already said in the original comment (the one you censored)the ottoman empire was expanding and needed A LOT of gold for that. They hit the natural barrier formed by the Danube and further expansion was not practical for any number of reasons. Because of that the sultans were trying to control the border formed by Wallachia and Moldavia by keeping hostage of the rulers sons (that is a fact)… that effectively kept them in check, making an impossible choice for them to ally with the hungarian or the pols for fear of loosing their bloodlines. But you forgot to mention that and went with the “he even offered his own two sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve in their army and to be raised as Muslims”. It was never an offering, it was a request made by the sultans to put them at ease with the disobedient rulers north of the Danube. He was not made prince by the ottomans, it was his birthright and that made him such a valuable hostage.
        Of course there was an occasional traitor betraying their own people and converting to islam just to get supported to the throne – Radu III.
        At the confluence of three empires: the ottomans, the hungarians and the polish, Wallachia and Moldavia did all sort of alliances and bertrays just to stay independent and unoccupied by foreigners.
        The stories about Vlad III were some sort of slander supported by the hungarians.
        Vlad III did some horrific stuff by modern standards but in the day that was common practice. Beheading is just as bad, but impaling makes for a more lasting emotional impact. The turks invented that as a special treat and Vlad made it his choice to repay them for the years spent as hostage in Istanbul.
        “The only time the Ottoman’s invaded…” – they invaded a lot and were in fact trying to convert to islam anyone they could (see Bosnia). It didn’t work in Wallachia and Moldavia.
        One more hole in your text: “an invading Muslim army demanding the children of the poor conquered Christians from whom Vlad Ţepeş…supposedly rises as a rebel leader. This is pure nonsense.” ever heard of the janissary corps?

  8. ALLKA, Besnik. says:

    Ok only a quick glance at the primary sources provided, Sfranzis and his Major Chronicle tears appart this argument. The Major Chronicle is a fake, or more specifically and apocryphe. I would also note the lack of “western” sources and generally the militant tone regarding Vlad Tepes and his “ways”, that coincide with the “western” portraying of his “torments”. This is the crux of East/West schism when it comes to proto-nationalism. The other such example would be Gjorgj Kastrioti aka Skanderbeg (in western patois) which has been described by German authors in very schizophrenic ways. When in line with the papal authority, Christian Champion and when trying to get an alliance with Naples and Aragon as a murderous thug. So again, this islamic view on who was who in regards to our Balkanic “heroes” is frankly non-sense. These men were medieval characters, ruthless people with far less ethial and moral fiber than what they’re sold but also no worse and that’s an euphemism than the people they were fighting. Starting by how A “historian” was writing in jail his “history of dracula”…Second, while you seem interested in Treptow’s historiography, one pretty amazing fact is that you should read his work on Ion Antonescu. It is satirically bad, but worse, it is a copy paste structure from his Dracula format…Third, McNally and Florescu’s book were more fiction than actually research, as both men were NOT allowed in ROmanie in th 70′s. Last but not least Only one reference cand be salvaged and some, that being Stoicescu, there again his work is a problematic one, given the nature of Romanian regime, most evident in his Courtisans and Servants in Romanian army.

    • Shibli Zaman says:

      Besnik, mirë se vjen. Thank you for sharing your negative opinions about each of those sources. However, what is puzzling is that you offer no sources that you would actually consider reliable. I sense there are none because, frankly, history may not have happened the way you’d have wanted it to.

      Rather than going down the list and saying, “He’s no good. Nope. I don’t like that one either, etc” How about you address whatever parts of the article you find to be inaccurate and I can respond? But please do so with some verifiable sources. With all due respect, your opinion –though appreciated– isn’t enough. Faleminderit.

  9. khalil says:

    I will be watching it. Its a science fiction. More akin to 300 or the immortals then braveheart. enjoy a sci fi action film for what it is. Just that.

  10. Jibran Khan says:

    I am utterly impressed the way you have explained the twisted historical events. In the current era of media being the power house; Muslims are lagging behind from the west by decades. Until this gap is filled, we will have to listen to our realities from the polarised media of west.

  11. Adrian says:

    I am now very sorry that I have replied on this forum where moderators can crop your message to the point that the meating of the text changes…

    • Moderator says:

      Dear Adrian,

      This is the comment moderation policy:

      “At SuhaibWebb.com, we encourage and value the comments of our readers. Comments will be moderated for relevance, obscenity, libel or hateful and defamatory language. Do not submit commercial, off-topic or other copyrighted material.
      All comments are published at the discretion of SuhaibWebb.com. Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them and do not necessarily reflect the views of SuhaibWebb.com or its content providers.”

      While your comment had relevant points, some statements were not conducive to a respectful discussion. We wanted to ensure that you have your say and thus kept the main points. However, we reserve the right to edit any disrespectful comments towards the author to allow for a fruitful conversation.

    • Shibli Zaman says:

      It always helps to avoid insults and, in place of that, quote some sources that substantiate your point. It’s a whole lot more effective. I look forward to what interesting references you can share.

  12. ZR says:

    WOW! Really interesting well written article – thank you.

    I just wish people would see everything documented in the article for what is truly is but alas its not like that.

    Ill be watching the movie soon but from a different perspective and can’t agree more with what Dr. Airil Haimi Adnan said “Let the discussion continue sans the Hollywood big-budget small-story popcorn-movie treatment!”

  13. Ribeiro says:

    This seem to be biased because is a well known fact that Ottomans did impale people. Knowing this why not consider that is possible Vlad Tepes actually learned it while living among them. He was definitely a monster but in some ways so was Mehmed II, although his philosophy of religious tolerance was good. You will find many sources mentioning the torture methods of the Ottomans which included impaling.

  14. Jes says:

    Since when has Hollywood bothered to let the truth get in the way of their films. Dracula Untold is just the latest in a huge line of films where the truth has been substituted for what serves the American agenda.
    Just look at films like Brave Heart, The Patriot, U571, even the Disney cartoons pay little heed to the stories they plagerise.
    It is hard to believe that Hollywood doesn’t have an agenda that changes with the political climate. The Russians were demonised and could do no good deed, then you had the Brit bashing phase with Brave Heart etc. There then followed a brief lull where no country was the enemy but all the bad guys had British accents or S African or some dubious none descript accent that could be a mix of several or all of the former countries. Now it is the Muslims, in particular either Arabic or Pakistani/Afghan.In the case os Dracula Untold they have the chance to paint Muslims as the evil bad guys in a continuation of the Crusades.
    Whenever Hollywood releases a film that they claim is historical,based on fact or even based on a novel the first thing we should do is research reliable sources as you can guarantee it will differ greatly from Hollywood’s version of fact or truth

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

More in History (1 of 44 articles)