11:13:42 PM Feb 19th 2012
Doesn't "Dracul" actually mean "Dragon"? The article even says it is related to the Order of the Dragon.
01:33:50 PM Aug 1st 2012
Dracula mean "little dragon" in Latin, but if I recall correctly, in the language of Wallachia at the time of Vlad's life the word meant Devil, or was understood to imply the Devil. It was probably a Bilingual Bonus at the time; if the theory of Stoker's use of the Gaelic pun, mentioned on the main page, is correct, that would make it a trilingual bonus now.
02:04:41 PM Aug 1st 2012
edited by LordGro
edited by LordGro
It means "dragon", although it technically also can mean devil. But as both Dracul and Dracula used these names themselves, they were certainly not to be understood as "Devil" or "Son of the Devil". There's also a hypothesis that the names are actually derived from „drag“ "precious", and the real meaning of "Dragul" accordingly was "beloved" or "noble". It may have been misinterpreted as "Dracul" because of the family's association with the Order of the Dragon. "Dracula", in any case, means basically "Son of Dracul" — nothing more.
05:55:38 AM Mar 8th 2011
"He has also appeared in more films than any other fictional character except for Sherlock Holmes — including films where both appear together. Well, unless Wong Fei Hong is counted." I don't understand this statement. According to IMDb, this Wong Fei Hung has been in 89 films, while Dracula has been in 225 and Holmes in 238. So why would you count Wong Fei Hung? Of course, I am unfamiliar with the Once Upon A Time in China franchise, so I might have missed something. Or maybe it's an in-joke.
10:26:22 AM Jun 26th 2011
1) Wong Fei-Hung has appeared far more than 89 times, but IMDB won't show it because most of the movies are obscure to English speakers and won't get put on IMDB. 2) Wong Fei-Hung is an actual person, though heavily fictionalized (though you could argue that Dracula is based on Vlad the Impaler, also an actual person)
03:42:54 PM Nov 12th 2010
About the mention of Vlad III Dracula... I am familiar with 'Vlad the Impaler', and I personally consider him a hero. I am not the only person who sees him in this light. Regardless of this tidbit, I'll give a better reason it should be changed: Referring to him as an "unsympathetic character" is quite a bit much, as, in general, he is known only for that one habit- which is consistently exaggerated. He did, in fact, appear to be some sort of demonic Complete Monster... to his enemies in war. His impalement was actually not so abnormal for the time, and the characterization comes from the (largely fabricated by his enemies) stories of his cruelty to innocent people (the meaning of 'innocent' here excluding anyone who fought in a war against him, who he can hardly be blamed for actively killing) and the way in which he displayed the impaled corpses to intimidate his enemies. The latter is, while unsavory, from a pragmatic standpoint, a military tactic that Sun Tzu would be proud of. Also, it's simply a heavily opinionated stance to call him "unsympathetic".