What do you think?
Rate this book
Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times
Dracula, Prince of Many Faces reveals the extraordinary life and times of the infamous Vlad Dracula of Romania (1431 - 1476), nicknamed the Impaler. Dreaded by his enemies, emulated by later rulers like Ivan the Terrible, honored by his countrymen even today, Vlad Dracula was surely one of the most intriguing figures to have stalked the corridors of European and Asian capitals in the fifteenth century.
382 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1989
143 people are currently reading
2018 people want to read
About the author
Radu R. Florescu
38 books37 followersRadu Florescu was a Romanian academic who held the position of Emeritus Professor of History at Boston College. His work on Vlad Dracula includes a series of bestselling books that he co-authored with his colleague Raymond T. McNally. Along with serving as Director of the East European Research Center at Boston College, Florescu was also a philanthropist and an adviser to Edward Kennedy on Balkan and Eastern European affairs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
February 1, 2014
I did not just read this book...I studied it. I was so intrigued by the real Vlad the Impaler, that every time I read this book, I sat down with a notebook, and took meticulous notes as to what I was reading. I live high in the rocky mountains, and I recall that one summer's night I sat outside reading this book by candlelight while sipping a cup of red wine (I'm big on creating atmosphere when reading books of this sort). In the distance, a pack of coyotes began to howl at the nearly full moon. I have to say, even though this book is about the real Dracula and not the vampire count...this was an epic, awesome moment for me!
Anyway,I learned a lot about Vlad the Impaler and his world in this book. I like medieval warfare and battles and strategy and tactics, and this book was light on these issues. Vlad the Impaler's battles were definitely discussed, but not in the detail I would have liked (specifically, I would have liked more maps, discussion on weapons, tactics, etc.). Still, this book contained tons of information on the politics of Vlad the Impaler's time. Hopefully I don't sound like a monster by saying this, but when the book was done, I did not see Vlad the Impaler as the blood-thirsty demon he is often perceived as. He is a hero in his home country. As this book referenced the atrocities of the middle-ages, Vlad's brutality did not seem that terrible compared to the brutality of some of his contemporaries (such as his arch-enemy, Mehmet II). The reality is, the middle-ages were a bitch, and Vlad Dracula was a product of the medieval world.
I'm also a big fan of the Hundred Years War, especially the reign of Henry V. I was interested to learn that Vlad II Dracul (Dracula's father)was a contemporary of Henry V, and that Henry V was also a member of the crusading, knightly order known as the Order of the Dragon.
Each page of this book is chalk full of interesting facts on warfare and politics in eastern Europe during the middle ages. The picture that is painted is that of a world filled with brutality, persistent and violent wars, plague, torture, betrayal, and tyranny. True, Vlad the Impaler employed monstrous tactics and devices in his rise to power, but had he not done this, he would not have left the bloody footprint on history that he did. I think it's safe to say that Vlad Dracula is a hero in modern day Romania because modern day Romania would not exist if not for the vicious exploits of Dracula...in controlling the treacherous Boyers (who murdered his brother and father in a terrible fashion) and in his expulsion of the Ottoman Turks.
I would venture to say we all have a morbid fascination about Vlad's moniker, "the Impaler." To say that this man often executed via impalement is a given. But I confess that I, like many, was morbidly curious as to what exactly Vlad's medieval form of impalement consisted of. I won't go into gruesome detail, but I will say this book does not overlook this topic. Vlad's favorite form of execution is discussed in detail, giving attention to the actual numbers of people he executed, and the techniques and methods he used (and I am not averse to blood and violence, but as I read some accounts, I had to cringe). Impalement has got to be one of the worst ways to go.
After reading this book, I was certain Vlad the Impaler is not someone I'd want at my house for dinner. However, if I was a peasant in medieval Transylvania, with the Ottoman Turks barking at the boarders of my homeland...Vlad the Impaler is the man I'd want to be in charge. It is said the world needs a hero. In mid-15th Century Wallachia, Vlad the Impaler was that hero. Once you read this book and learn about Vlad, this simple truth will bring into cold, harsh reality, just how brutal and awful the middle ages really were. Hey, I like to read about the middle ages, but there is nothing...NOTHING...that would make me want to live during that time period. If you're in doubt about this statement, read this book.
Anyway,I learned a lot about Vlad the Impaler and his world in this book. I like medieval warfare and battles and strategy and tactics, and this book was light on these issues. Vlad the Impaler's battles were definitely discussed, but not in the detail I would have liked (specifically, I would have liked more maps, discussion on weapons, tactics, etc.). Still, this book contained tons of information on the politics of Vlad the Impaler's time. Hopefully I don't sound like a monster by saying this, but when the book was done, I did not see Vlad the Impaler as the blood-thirsty demon he is often perceived as. He is a hero in his home country. As this book referenced the atrocities of the middle-ages, Vlad's brutality did not seem that terrible compared to the brutality of some of his contemporaries (such as his arch-enemy, Mehmet II). The reality is, the middle-ages were a bitch, and Vlad Dracula was a product of the medieval world.
I'm also a big fan of the Hundred Years War, especially the reign of Henry V. I was interested to learn that Vlad II Dracul (Dracula's father)was a contemporary of Henry V, and that Henry V was also a member of the crusading, knightly order known as the Order of the Dragon.
Each page of this book is chalk full of interesting facts on warfare and politics in eastern Europe during the middle ages. The picture that is painted is that of a world filled with brutality, persistent and violent wars, plague, torture, betrayal, and tyranny. True, Vlad the Impaler employed monstrous tactics and devices in his rise to power, but had he not done this, he would not have left the bloody footprint on history that he did. I think it's safe to say that Vlad Dracula is a hero in modern day Romania because modern day Romania would not exist if not for the vicious exploits of Dracula...in controlling the treacherous Boyers (who murdered his brother and father in a terrible fashion) and in his expulsion of the Ottoman Turks.
I would venture to say we all have a morbid fascination about Vlad's moniker, "the Impaler." To say that this man often executed via impalement is a given. But I confess that I, like many, was morbidly curious as to what exactly Vlad's medieval form of impalement consisted of. I won't go into gruesome detail, but I will say this book does not overlook this topic. Vlad's favorite form of execution is discussed in detail, giving attention to the actual numbers of people he executed, and the techniques and methods he used (and I am not averse to blood and violence, but as I read some accounts, I had to cringe). Impalement has got to be one of the worst ways to go.
After reading this book, I was certain Vlad the Impaler is not someone I'd want at my house for dinner. However, if I was a peasant in medieval Transylvania, with the Ottoman Turks barking at the boarders of my homeland...Vlad the Impaler is the man I'd want to be in charge. It is said the world needs a hero. In mid-15th Century Wallachia, Vlad the Impaler was that hero. Once you read this book and learn about Vlad, this simple truth will bring into cold, harsh reality, just how brutal and awful the middle ages really were. Hey, I like to read about the middle ages, but there is nothing...NOTHING...that would make me want to live during that time period. If you're in doubt about this statement, read this book.
November 1, 2025
The story of the historical figure Vlad III Dracul started with the name "Son of the Dragon"
Sigismund, King of Hungary, created the Order of the Dragon in 1408 to defend against the expanding Ottoman Empire and to bind loyal nobles to his rule.
This chivalric order was modeled after military orders from the Crusades and was dedicated to protecting Christianity from foreign enemies.
Sigismund inducted Vlad II into the Order of the Dragon and he adopted the name "Dracul" after being accepted in 1431.
Vlad II would have 3 legitimate sons that would become rulers.
Vlad II's oldest son was Mircea II, who was the heir to the throne of Wallachia.
He was tragically killed in 1447, the same year his father Vlad II was executed. After being blinded and brutally tortured Mircea II was buried alive.
Vlad III (the Impaler) and his younger brother, Radu, became hostages of the Ottoman Empire when their father, Vlad II Dracul, who was a a vassal ruler of the principality of Wallachia, was forced to surrender them to Sultan Murad II. This was to ensure his political loyalty and secure Ottoman military support.
In the days of Vlad II Dracule and Vlad III (The Impaler) the greatest threat and point of conflict were the Ottoman Turks who had massive armies in within their empire.
The two greatest sultans of this time were Murad II
(1421-1451) and Mehmed II (1451-1481).
These Sultans were cultured personalities. They patronized famous Italian artists and married daughters of Balkan and Byzantine rulers.
They would often tolerate Jewish asylum seekers and other minorities at a time when they were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Vlad III and Radu were held hostage by the Ottoman Turks for approximately five years, from 1442 to 1447.
During this time, they were held in a citadel and received military, philosophical, and scientific training.
Vlad III developed a deep seething hatred for the Ottomans during this period, while Radu eventually converted to Islam and became a Turkish favorite.
Vlad III began his major conflicts with the Ottoman Empire in 1461, when he launched attacks along the Danube after learning of a plot against him. This escalated into a full-scale Ottoman invasion in 1462.
In these times "mercy meant weakness and weakness meant annihilation. "
Vlad III understood and utilized psychological warfare, most famously through his use of terror and public displays of impalement to demoralize enemies and create an atmosphere of fear.
He learned tactical warfare which included using terror as a weapon, during his youth when he was held as a prisoner by the Ottomans.
When he was facing an attack and was hopelessly outnumbered, Vlad III conducted a famous night attack at Targoviste.
He also famously impaled thousands of Ottoman prisoners outside the capital as a psychological deterrent. This maneuver made him a legend of brutality. He was feared as the devil himself.
When Sultan Mehmed II and his army encountered the "forest of the impaled" 20,000+ soldiers, they were horrified, and the sultan reportedly turned his army around and retreated from Wallachia.
The gruesome display of psychological warfare by Vlad the Impaler so terrified the Ottoman forces that it caused them to abandon their invasion Word of this atrocity spread quickly and the result solidified Vlad's legendary status.
Vlad III through practice of the gruesome torture of impalement of a human, learned how it could be a quick death or made a slow agonizing process lasting as long as three days. In this he outdid the Romans and their favorite punishment of crucifixion.
In 1462, after Vlad refused to pay tribute and attacked Ottoman territories, Sultan Mehmed II launched a massive invasion of Wallachia. Despite Vlad's use of psychological warfare tactics, such as the "Forest of the Impaled," his smaller army was unable to repel the superior Ottoman forces in open battle, forcing him to retreat and resort to guerrilla tactics.
Vlad fled to Transylvania to seek military assistance from his nominal ally, King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary.
Instead, Matthias had Vlad arrested on fabricated charges of being an Ottoman sympathizer and imprisoned him for over a decade.
After his release from imprisonment years later, Vlad briefly regained the throne in 1476 with Hungarian and Moldavian support.
He lacked enough support to hold it long-term and was killed shortly after in a skirmish against Ottoman forces and those of his Wallachian rival, Basarab III Laiotă.
His decapitated head was sent to Constantinople and shown to the sultan as proof of his death.
His bodily remains were never found.
The traditional belief is that he is buried at Snagov Monastery in Romania, although archaeological evidence is inconclusive.
He was fearless, brutal, sadistic and vengeful. Merciless with his enemies but he was not a Vampire.
Sigismund, King of Hungary, created the Order of the Dragon in 1408 to defend against the expanding Ottoman Empire and to bind loyal nobles to his rule.
This chivalric order was modeled after military orders from the Crusades and was dedicated to protecting Christianity from foreign enemies.
Sigismund inducted Vlad II into the Order of the Dragon and he adopted the name "Dracul" after being accepted in 1431.
Vlad II would have 3 legitimate sons that would become rulers.
Vlad II's oldest son was Mircea II, who was the heir to the throne of Wallachia.
He was tragically killed in 1447, the same year his father Vlad II was executed. After being blinded and brutally tortured Mircea II was buried alive.
Vlad III (the Impaler) and his younger brother, Radu, became hostages of the Ottoman Empire when their father, Vlad II Dracul, who was a a vassal ruler of the principality of Wallachia, was forced to surrender them to Sultan Murad II. This was to ensure his political loyalty and secure Ottoman military support.
In the days of Vlad II Dracule and Vlad III (The Impaler) the greatest threat and point of conflict were the Ottoman Turks who had massive armies in within their empire.
The two greatest sultans of this time were Murad II
(1421-1451) and Mehmed II (1451-1481).
These Sultans were cultured personalities. They patronized famous Italian artists and married daughters of Balkan and Byzantine rulers.
They would often tolerate Jewish asylum seekers and other minorities at a time when they were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Vlad III and Radu were held hostage by the Ottoman Turks for approximately five years, from 1442 to 1447.
During this time, they were held in a citadel and received military, philosophical, and scientific training.
Vlad III developed a deep seething hatred for the Ottomans during this period, while Radu eventually converted to Islam and became a Turkish favorite.
Vlad III began his major conflicts with the Ottoman Empire in 1461, when he launched attacks along the Danube after learning of a plot against him. This escalated into a full-scale Ottoman invasion in 1462.
In these times "mercy meant weakness and weakness meant annihilation. "
Vlad III understood and utilized psychological warfare, most famously through his use of terror and public displays of impalement to demoralize enemies and create an atmosphere of fear.
He learned tactical warfare which included using terror as a weapon, during his youth when he was held as a prisoner by the Ottomans.
When he was facing an attack and was hopelessly outnumbered, Vlad III conducted a famous night attack at Targoviste.
He also famously impaled thousands of Ottoman prisoners outside the capital as a psychological deterrent. This maneuver made him a legend of brutality. He was feared as the devil himself.
When Sultan Mehmed II and his army encountered the "forest of the impaled" 20,000+ soldiers, they were horrified, and the sultan reportedly turned his army around and retreated from Wallachia.
The gruesome display of psychological warfare by Vlad the Impaler so terrified the Ottoman forces that it caused them to abandon their invasion Word of this atrocity spread quickly and the result solidified Vlad's legendary status.
Vlad III through practice of the gruesome torture of impalement of a human, learned how it could be a quick death or made a slow agonizing process lasting as long as three days. In this he outdid the Romans and their favorite punishment of crucifixion.
In 1462, after Vlad refused to pay tribute and attacked Ottoman territories, Sultan Mehmed II launched a massive invasion of Wallachia. Despite Vlad's use of psychological warfare tactics, such as the "Forest of the Impaled," his smaller army was unable to repel the superior Ottoman forces in open battle, forcing him to retreat and resort to guerrilla tactics.
Vlad fled to Transylvania to seek military assistance from his nominal ally, King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary.
Instead, Matthias had Vlad arrested on fabricated charges of being an Ottoman sympathizer and imprisoned him for over a decade.
After his release from imprisonment years later, Vlad briefly regained the throne in 1476 with Hungarian and Moldavian support.
He lacked enough support to hold it long-term and was killed shortly after in a skirmish against Ottoman forces and those of his Wallachian rival, Basarab III Laiotă.
His decapitated head was sent to Constantinople and shown to the sultan as proof of his death.
His bodily remains were never found.
The traditional belief is that he is buried at Snagov Monastery in Romania, although archaeological evidence is inconclusive.
He was fearless, brutal, sadistic and vengeful. Merciless with his enemies but he was not a Vampire.
November 6, 2015
Count Dracula is a historical frustration. His life illustrates why it is difficult for historians to make simple moral judgments on time periods they know little about. Even if 90% of the horrific legends about Dracula are false--and they are--he was still a bad man (and I maintain demon-possessed). But it's worse than that: as horrible as he was Dracula singlehandedly kept Europe from being overrun by Muslims. As Florescu notes, "Europe was more interested in political in-fighting that in resisting the Turks. Only the Slavs were willing to push back the Turk" (26). The authors note that had not Dracula resisted the Turk, "the Muslim world would have extended from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic seaboard" (15).
Turkish goals were simple and thorough: Mehmed "planned to strike at the pillars of European civilization and bring it tumbling down into his control. Though Dracula ruled a small country, he was quite as determined and proud as the sultan himself." At all times Dracula was outnumbered three to one (125). It seems that the Popes had learned from their previous mistakes. It appears they never took the Turkish conquest of Byzantium seriously. They were probably thrilled that Muslims were punishing the Greek schismatics. That explains why the Popes always hem-hawed on sending armies to fight off the Turk in the 15th century. After the fall of Constantinople the popes probably realized how precarious their existence was. While Dracula did the brunt of the fighting and deserves most of the praise, the popes did do a decent job in rallying much of Central Europe.
Dracula, however, never achieved a complete victory over the Turk. He did frustrate Turkish plans for conquest and he did keep his Romania largely free, but Turkish power was not broken and much of Southeastern Europe was still enslaved.
The authors end the book with three different ways of interpreting Dracula: According to the German catholics, Dracula was Satan incarnate (it's probable the Germans invented a lot of the blood-sucking rumors). According to the Russians he was cruel but just. The Romanians view him as a nationalist freedom-fighter. The authors suggest that all three views are accurate when combined.
Turkish goals were simple and thorough: Mehmed "planned to strike at the pillars of European civilization and bring it tumbling down into his control. Though Dracula ruled a small country, he was quite as determined and proud as the sultan himself." At all times Dracula was outnumbered three to one (125). It seems that the Popes had learned from their previous mistakes. It appears they never took the Turkish conquest of Byzantium seriously. They were probably thrilled that Muslims were punishing the Greek schismatics. That explains why the Popes always hem-hawed on sending armies to fight off the Turk in the 15th century. After the fall of Constantinople the popes probably realized how precarious their existence was. While Dracula did the brunt of the fighting and deserves most of the praise, the popes did do a decent job in rallying much of Central Europe.
Dracula, however, never achieved a complete victory over the Turk. He did frustrate Turkish plans for conquest and he did keep his Romania largely free, but Turkish power was not broken and much of Southeastern Europe was still enslaved.
The authors end the book with three different ways of interpreting Dracula: According to the German catholics, Dracula was Satan incarnate (it's probable the Germans invented a lot of the blood-sucking rumors). According to the Russians he was cruel but just. The Romanians view him as a nationalist freedom-fighter. The authors suggest that all three views are accurate when combined.
August 23, 2013
Someone NEEDS to make a movie from this book! Vlad Dracula was a very disturbed yet unique individual. His title "Vlad the Impaler" couldn't be more appropriate. This guy had serious mental malfunctions. If you could capture the stages of his life accurately and vividly on the big screen it would be an amazing spectical to see. Especially "the Forest of the Impaled"!!!!! Probably the most horrific (and effective) scare tactic in the history of warfare. Its not hard to see how this guy was the inspiration for Count Dracula, the vampire. Honestly, I think this guy was scarier. And everything he did was REAL! There is times the book will take you off the subject a little, giving you more eastern European history than you really need to know to understand Dracula's story.... but the beef of the book sticks to him or others directly involved with him and events concerning him. But his story is so interesting and bizarre (and violent and cruel) that it keeps you going. Personally, I found the story of Vlad "The Impaler" Dracula to be a very interesting read.
August 30, 2011
We will travel to Romania/Transylvania in Oct 2011 and I wanted to read about the real Dracula. I've read lots more 15th century Eastern European history than I was ever exposed to in school. Vlad Dracula was indeed real, an illegitimate son of Vlad Dracul who very much wanted the throne his father had. He succeeded to that throne 3 separate times. The authors did extensive research from the perspective of the Hungarians, Saxons, and Russians that described a man who was considered by his enemies to be cruel and vicious. Some of the local peasant folklore painted him as a fair and just ruler who took from the rich and gave to the poor. By many he was considered to be a valiant military leader who fought to keep the Ottoman Turks out of Eastern Europe.
Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally did extensive research and wrote a very readable and fascinating history. Radu Florescu has continued research since this book was published almost 20 years ago; Raymond McNally died in 2002. Florescu is now Professor Emeritus at Boston College.
Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally did extensive research and wrote a very readable and fascinating history. Radu Florescu has continued research since this book was published almost 20 years ago; Raymond McNally died in 2002. Florescu is now Professor Emeritus at Boston College.
August 31, 2016
I have read this book over a dozen times over the years. In recent years, I have heard criticisms of some of the accuracy with some content. Yet, I still have used it as a reference many times in my own work, and feel it gave a very good portrayal of the type of man Vlad Dracula was; better than most I have read. I love this book regardless.
September 9, 2016
5.11.2014
I wasn't supposed to read this yet, but I got hooked. Mmm, books that I pretend to buy for uni work... And reading those said books while trying to study something completely different.
- - -
6.11.2013
I'm going to be writing an essay soon about vampire films, and how people react in them when confronted with vampires. Do I need to say I love my comparative religion course? Anyway, I bought this pretending I absolutely need this for that essay. I don't. But hey, it's Vlad and it was cheap! The book, not Vlad.
I wasn't supposed to read this yet, but I got hooked. Mmm, books that I pretend to buy for uni work... And reading those said books while trying to study something completely different.
- - -
6.11.2013
I'm going to be writing an essay soon about vampire films, and how people react in them when confronted with vampires. Do I need to say I love my comparative religion course? Anyway, I bought this pretending I absolutely need this for that essay. I don't. But hey, it's Vlad and it was cheap! The book, not Vlad.
November 4, 2024
Vlad…Dracula, the Impaler, Tepes…the prince of many faces. Florescu and McNally attemp to unravel centuries of legends, myths, lies, and interpretive metamorphosis of the figure Vlad Dracula the Impaler. It may surprise many to find that the infamous “vampire” that sucks the blood from victims, hypnotizes with his voice, transforms into a bat, and inspires countless Halloween costumes every year was a real life ruler of Wallachia(part of modern Romania) in the 15th Century. Even more surprising to many would be that the blood letting, torture, and outright murder were also historical facts related to Vlad.
Much of the truth has been obscured for centuries, due to Vlad’s many enemies attempting to portray him in a light that best suited their interests. Largely, Florescu and McNally relate that the versions of Vlad that have been historically recorded and interpreted came from German, Hungarian, Russian, Turkish, and Romanian sources. While the Germans and Turks portrayed Vlad negatively(with the Germans supplying the most grotesque and evil version), the Russian and Hungarian sources are more measured, and Romanian sources have glorified him as a national hero. Due to the lack of a written Romanian language at the time of Vlad’s life, most of the accounts of him are secondhand, leaving many gaps in his biography.
The account was generally well written from an academic perspective. However, Florescu and McNally at times seem to stray too far into seemingly defending the atrocities committed by Vlad under the guise of building a strong, centralized government in Romania. The books is heavily focused on political and genealogical history. Military tactics and accounts of battles or sieges are treated lightly. Religion is surprisingly one of the strongest elements of this work, as the authors present the differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches quite explicitly. They also incorporate the “crusading” element in the holy war between Christianity and Islam. A very interesting account, but nearly 40 years after the writing, it does feel somewhat dated. However, for anyone unfamiliar with the history of Vlad or Eastern Europe in the 15th Century, a very helpful resource.
Much of the truth has been obscured for centuries, due to Vlad’s many enemies attempting to portray him in a light that best suited their interests. Largely, Florescu and McNally relate that the versions of Vlad that have been historically recorded and interpreted came from German, Hungarian, Russian, Turkish, and Romanian sources. While the Germans and Turks portrayed Vlad negatively(with the Germans supplying the most grotesque and evil version), the Russian and Hungarian sources are more measured, and Romanian sources have glorified him as a national hero. Due to the lack of a written Romanian language at the time of Vlad’s life, most of the accounts of him are secondhand, leaving many gaps in his biography.
The account was generally well written from an academic perspective. However, Florescu and McNally at times seem to stray too far into seemingly defending the atrocities committed by Vlad under the guise of building a strong, centralized government in Romania. The books is heavily focused on political and genealogical history. Military tactics and accounts of battles or sieges are treated lightly. Religion is surprisingly one of the strongest elements of this work, as the authors present the differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches quite explicitly. They also incorporate the “crusading” element in the holy war between Christianity and Islam. A very interesting account, but nearly 40 years after the writing, it does feel somewhat dated. However, for anyone unfamiliar with the history of Vlad or Eastern Europe in the 15th Century, a very helpful resource.
January 25, 2023
This was very informative and in-depth, while dry at times, this is easily the most accessible and all-in-one Dracula history book you could want. It is a full biography also touching on his father and descendants as well as other important people of the period such as Hunyadi. It is also a full breakdown of how the vampire myth and foreign/folklore perceptions of Vlad/Dracula evolved. And as well a breakdown of Bram Stoker's inspiration and take on Dracula. If you want to learn more about the real man, the perception of his time, his atrocities and victories, and how the perception of him has shifted from tracts in Germany just after his death condemning him to Romanian folklore reverence to Russians having a mixed but overall sympathetic view of him that even went on to inspire Ivan the Terrible. Read this book.
December 14, 2018
Very interesting read for those who are curious about the true story behind the legend of Dracula. The authors are a little biased toward their subject but do a good job of showing how the different views of this historical figure originated.
January 28, 2023
Bleh. Dull.
December 18, 2022
This is a really good book, and probably the best biography of Vlad the Impaler out there. It offers a really good insight to the context of Vlad and his actions by providing information on his family that came before him and the setting of Transylvania and the surrounding nations. However, it does tend to tangent into some rather unrelated ideas, especially in the chapters dealing with the time after Vlad's death. The context on Bram Stoker's writing could have been a little more concise in particular. I also disagree with some of their personal interjections to explain certain things. Additionally, the maps were terrible. They were printed in a way that the binding ruined part of the maps, and they didn't even have many of the places mentioned in writing listed on the maps. I would love to see an updated text with better maps and perhaps footnotes to clarify some of the dates and names. An updated text with info discovered since publication would be great too.
Overall, a great text that I'll be referring to quite frequently I'm sure. I particularly like the authors' explanation of sources used, and their defense of folklore and oral tradition.
#VladtheImaplerWasAWarHero
Overall, a great text that I'll be referring to quite frequently I'm sure. I particularly like the authors' explanation of sources used, and their defense of folklore and oral tradition.
#VladtheImaplerWasAWarHero
August 21, 2024
Gruesome. Vlad the Impaler well deserved hIs moniker. Probably more Machiavellian than libertine De Sadism, but a portion of the latter definitely infused his despotism. Though historical sources are spotty, you wouldn’t know it from the tale weaved together of his life—rising and falling as a Romanian prince and bulwark against the Turks.. If only Dante lived later, we’d know what circle of hell Dracula found himself in. Frankly, he’d be even lower than the vampire he inspired.
March 9, 2022
Pretty much any book published in the last three decades involving Vlad the Impaler, the fascinating historical figure who became the basis for Bram Stoker's Dracula, draws on Florescu and McNally's various works on the subject. A gripping narrative history that gives a detailed account of this intriguing figure and the times he lived in.
April 9, 2025
I read 3/4 of it. I was only reading it for the historical aspects of him in regards to the Muslim occupation and invasion of Europe for 700 years culminating in the inevitable crusades to push them back. Very interesting and informative book, but was too much for what I needed!
3 of 5 for verbosity. One of those history books which is about 15-25% pork, in my opinion.
3 of 5 for verbosity. One of those history books which is about 15-25% pork, in my opinion.
October 31, 2024
This was quite a detailed book about Vlad Dracula. The authors reconstruct his life from court documents, memoirs, songs/literature and oral histories. It covered not only his life but his ancestors and descendants, his contemporaries and the history of the region leading up to, during and after his life. The popular hook for the book, how and why Stoker chose this historical prince for his famous vampire, was less interesting compared to the politics and characters of Eastern Europe in the 1400s.
This book is more for a history fan. At many times I put the book down to go search for and read a primary or secondary source that was referenced in the text, which made the book a longer read for me.
This book is more for a history fan. At many times I put the book down to go search for and read a primary or secondary source that was referenced in the text, which made the book a longer read for me.
November 1, 2025
Not as biased as you would expect but not quite the tribute he deserves. He defended Christendom from the Turks and should be celebrated.
April 23, 2018
I love how the writer really digs into the man behind the legend. Rich storytelling and a fantastic way of writing, highly suggest this book!
August 4, 2018
Comprehensive and captivating! I know I'll keep coming back to it for years
November 5, 2012
This book looks at the man behind the legend of Dracula. The back cover's promise that the historical Dracula is far more interesting than his fictional counterpart is, unlike most back cover proclamations, true.
The authors do a good job of laying out the history of the the Wallachian princes beginning with Dracula's grandfather, Mircea. They have also managed to uncover a reasonable amount of information on Vlad Dracul, Dracula's father who joined a crusading order with a dragon symbol in Germany and hence earned the name Dracul (dragon). Due to heavy pressure from the growing Ottoman Empire, Dracula and his younger brother Radu were taken hostage and spent a good deal of their childhood and adolescence in the Ottoman capital of Adrianople. Interestingly enough, Dracula was the same age as Mehmed II and was educated alongside him.
After Dracula's father and eldest brother were slain, Dracula was sent to go fight for his throne. When he won, he began building his fearsome reputation as Vlad the Impaler. A moral reformer at home, he supposedly impaled one farmer's wife for laziness when he saw her husband working hard in the fields with clothes which were too small. He was a staunch defender of the Orthodox church and impaled many Catholics. Not a fan of German merchants in Transylvania, Dracula raided with his cavalry and set many of them up on stakes. He achieved his greatest fame in 1462 for inflicting a humiliating defeat on his boyhood rival Mehmed II (now called "the Conqueror" for having taken Constantinople) despite being outnumbered by 3:1. This was the incident where he impaled such a large number of enemy captives that Mehmed became disheartened and recrossed the Danube. The authors also point out that the sources make clear that Dracula was a great commander with the ability to inspire loyalty and to lay out and execute fairly complex strategies. Fascinatingly, the various accounts of Dracula's battles with Mehmed constitutes one of the most detailed accounts of a conflict in the 15th Century.
Mehmed released his lover and Dracula's brother Radu, who managed to win over the people and boyars by his promise of mercy after several years of Dracula's brutality. For over a decade, Dracula was basically a prisoner at the Hungarian court. Later, Matthias Corvinus decided to unleash him to retake Wallachia and Transylvania and Dracula displayed his old skill and brutality. He was assassinated by one of his own men before he could press forward with his goal of further assualting Ottoman territory. Dracula lived to be about 45 years old.
Florescu and McNally devote a lot of space to discussing the deeds of Dracula's ancestors and descendants. His grandfather Mircea was arguably the greatest of the Wallachian princes while one of his grandsons or great-grandsons managed to temporarily unite Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania in the early 1500's. What we see is that brutality and ability were family traits. Only Dracula came to enjoy legendary status, however. The authors credit Dracula with effectively creating the conditions for Bucharest to become Romania's capital by fortifying the city.
The discussion of the source material is really great and as a historian I can appreciate the troubles and language barriers that these two guys faced. Information on Dracula comes from a variety of scattered sources and it must have been a long and hard task to mould it into a coherent whole. Everything from a Russian envoy's dispatch designed as policy advice to German horror stories to Romanian folklore gives some piece of information on Dracula. What is interesting is how much all of these varied accounts, with their varying interests are largely in agreement. It is clear that Dracula was cold, sadistic, authoritarian, and effective.
Of course, they also discuss Stoker's novel and how aware he was of certain historical facts about Dracula but how he fudged a lot of stuff, including where Castle Dracula is located. This was probably the weakest section of the book, but it was still pretty interesting.
Overall, this is popular history at its best and I highly recommend it.
The authors do a good job of laying out the history of the the Wallachian princes beginning with Dracula's grandfather, Mircea. They have also managed to uncover a reasonable amount of information on Vlad Dracul, Dracula's father who joined a crusading order with a dragon symbol in Germany and hence earned the name Dracul (dragon). Due to heavy pressure from the growing Ottoman Empire, Dracula and his younger brother Radu were taken hostage and spent a good deal of their childhood and adolescence in the Ottoman capital of Adrianople. Interestingly enough, Dracula was the same age as Mehmed II and was educated alongside him.
After Dracula's father and eldest brother were slain, Dracula was sent to go fight for his throne. When he won, he began building his fearsome reputation as Vlad the Impaler. A moral reformer at home, he supposedly impaled one farmer's wife for laziness when he saw her husband working hard in the fields with clothes which were too small. He was a staunch defender of the Orthodox church and impaled many Catholics. Not a fan of German merchants in Transylvania, Dracula raided with his cavalry and set many of them up on stakes. He achieved his greatest fame in 1462 for inflicting a humiliating defeat on his boyhood rival Mehmed II (now called "the Conqueror" for having taken Constantinople) despite being outnumbered by 3:1. This was the incident where he impaled such a large number of enemy captives that Mehmed became disheartened and recrossed the Danube. The authors also point out that the sources make clear that Dracula was a great commander with the ability to inspire loyalty and to lay out and execute fairly complex strategies. Fascinatingly, the various accounts of Dracula's battles with Mehmed constitutes one of the most detailed accounts of a conflict in the 15th Century.
Mehmed released his lover and Dracula's brother Radu, who managed to win over the people and boyars by his promise of mercy after several years of Dracula's brutality. For over a decade, Dracula was basically a prisoner at the Hungarian court. Later, Matthias Corvinus decided to unleash him to retake Wallachia and Transylvania and Dracula displayed his old skill and brutality. He was assassinated by one of his own men before he could press forward with his goal of further assualting Ottoman territory. Dracula lived to be about 45 years old.
Florescu and McNally devote a lot of space to discussing the deeds of Dracula's ancestors and descendants. His grandfather Mircea was arguably the greatest of the Wallachian princes while one of his grandsons or great-grandsons managed to temporarily unite Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania in the early 1500's. What we see is that brutality and ability were family traits. Only Dracula came to enjoy legendary status, however. The authors credit Dracula with effectively creating the conditions for Bucharest to become Romania's capital by fortifying the city.
The discussion of the source material is really great and as a historian I can appreciate the troubles and language barriers that these two guys faced. Information on Dracula comes from a variety of scattered sources and it must have been a long and hard task to mould it into a coherent whole. Everything from a Russian envoy's dispatch designed as policy advice to German horror stories to Romanian folklore gives some piece of information on Dracula. What is interesting is how much all of these varied accounts, with their varying interests are largely in agreement. It is clear that Dracula was cold, sadistic, authoritarian, and effective.
Of course, they also discuss Stoker's novel and how aware he was of certain historical facts about Dracula but how he fudged a lot of stuff, including where Castle Dracula is located. This was probably the weakest section of the book, but it was still pretty interesting.
Overall, this is popular history at its best and I highly recommend it.
March 27, 2014
I marked this book as to-read about eight or nine years ago during my first year as a history student when I did a paper about Vlad the Impaler. At the time I couldn't get a hand on a copy of this book and didn't need it in the end but I've always wanted to read it.
Now that I've finally gotten around to reading it I must say that I probably would have enjoyed it more all those years ago. 'Dracula, Prince of Many Faces' is a work of narrative history, it tells a story much rather than portray a discussion of the current historical research being done. As such it glosses over a great many controversial issues that I, and any other historian, can spot straight away. The critical observer gets the idea that the whole narrative the authors are trying to make is held together haphazardly by a few tidbits of presumed facts. There is a great lack of primary sources and as a result the authors have pieced together (quite admirably) bits from contempary diplomatic letters, oral traditions and histories written quite some time after the events took place. The authors constantly try to push the legitimacy of their sources and use other bad argumentations to create the picture they want.
All of this wouldn't have bothered me so much years ago when I would have simply enjoyed the story and the historical origin of the most popular of vampire myths. Nowadays though I found myself being annoyed by the leaps of faith the authors were willing to make and by vivid story they tried to paint based on what is very clearly a small amount of actual source material. For anyone somewhat interested in the historical figure of Vlad 'The Impaler' Dracula this book will be interesting but anyone hoping for a more scholarly approach to the subject will be disappointed.
Now that I've finally gotten around to reading it I must say that I probably would have enjoyed it more all those years ago. 'Dracula, Prince of Many Faces' is a work of narrative history, it tells a story much rather than portray a discussion of the current historical research being done. As such it glosses over a great many controversial issues that I, and any other historian, can spot straight away. The critical observer gets the idea that the whole narrative the authors are trying to make is held together haphazardly by a few tidbits of presumed facts. There is a great lack of primary sources and as a result the authors have pieced together (quite admirably) bits from contempary diplomatic letters, oral traditions and histories written quite some time after the events took place. The authors constantly try to push the legitimacy of their sources and use other bad argumentations to create the picture they want.
All of this wouldn't have bothered me so much years ago when I would have simply enjoyed the story and the historical origin of the most popular of vampire myths. Nowadays though I found myself being annoyed by the leaps of faith the authors were willing to make and by vivid story they tried to paint based on what is very clearly a small amount of actual source material. For anyone somewhat interested in the historical figure of Vlad 'The Impaler' Dracula this book will be interesting but anyone hoping for a more scholarly approach to the subject will be disappointed.
May 24, 2024
Another great read from Florescu and McNally. I love Dracula and all things vampires so I'm probably biased. If you're interested, I included some fun biographical details about me below.
Back to the book. I'm not going to lie, some parts were a little boring to me. Particularly when the authors lay the ground work about the state of the medieval world prior to Vlad's arrival on the scene.
Otherwise, this was a great read. Much was information already familiar to me but since these authors were basically the team who discovered the original thread from Stoker's Dracula to Vlad the Impaler I felt like it was a must read. It covers not only the biography of Vlad, but explains the propaganda generated from his contemporaries and beyond to get us where we are today.
I highly recommend this book to any history lover and/or monster fanatic.
..............
My love this type of book comes several biographical things about me that aren't related to the book, but I think explain my passion:
- I'm from Slovakia, the land of Elizabeth Bathory and the location of some shots in the original Nosferatu
- My parents are basically closeted goths, obsessed with all things monstrous and spooky. For example, they grew up as staunch Catholics in communist Czechoslovakia. So they had a weird mix of that Central European dark Catholicism mixed with repression. So their outlets were old folklore and hanging out in cemeteries.
-When we moved to the states, they dove headfirst into Halloween. It was our family's favorite time of year.
-On visits back to the old country, almost every day was spent in the ruin of some castle, ancient church or paying respects to some great great ancestor in the tiny village cemetery both sides of my family take their final rests in
Back to the book. I'm not going to lie, some parts were a little boring to me. Particularly when the authors lay the ground work about the state of the medieval world prior to Vlad's arrival on the scene.
Otherwise, this was a great read. Much was information already familiar to me but since these authors were basically the team who discovered the original thread from Stoker's Dracula to Vlad the Impaler I felt like it was a must read. It covers not only the biography of Vlad, but explains the propaganda generated from his contemporaries and beyond to get us where we are today.
I highly recommend this book to any history lover and/or monster fanatic.
..............
My love this type of book comes several biographical things about me that aren't related to the book, but I think explain my passion:
- I'm from Slovakia, the land of Elizabeth Bathory and the location of some shots in the original Nosferatu
- My parents are basically closeted goths, obsessed with all things monstrous and spooky. For example, they grew up as staunch Catholics in communist Czechoslovakia. So they had a weird mix of that Central European dark Catholicism mixed with repression. So their outlets were old folklore and hanging out in cemeteries.
-When we moved to the states, they dove headfirst into Halloween. It was our family's favorite time of year.
-On visits back to the old country, almost every day was spent in the ruin of some castle, ancient church or paying respects to some great great ancestor in the tiny village cemetery both sides of my family take their final rests in
August 26, 2015
Factual, which I'm sure is hard to come by due to the time lapse since this man lived. During my "vampire" phase (which thanks to the Twilight trilogy has not exactly abated), I picked this up because fact is often more interesting than fiction to me. These authors are really the majority of this field. I picked this out of their books on the subject because it was the only one immediately available. It is fairly straightforward, but I didn't get very far into it. It is really, really dry (and I hate to use the word "really" for any reason in a review, but I feel compelled to use it TWICE). My husband promises it picks up a little, but he even admitted it was more like a textbook and less like a novel. Since the authors pioneered an entire biographical college course on this individual, I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what it was.
December 15, 2016
This biography reads like a car manual. It's very dry and completely glosses over the fact that Dracula was a sadistic tyrant. His war crimes are mentioned as one would make small-talk. "Did you hear that Dracula impaled 10,000 villagers just yesterday? And, BTW, that hat really suits you."
Also, Dracula's early life in the sultan's court is barely mentioned at all. This is puzzling because most historians attribute Dracula's torture techniques and loss of empathy to his teachings at the Sultan's.
Also, Dracula's early life in the sultan's court is barely mentioned at all. This is puzzling because most historians attribute Dracula's torture techniques and loss of empathy to his teachings at the Sultan's.
October 11, 2019
Amazingly engrossing - especially after reading ‘Vlad: The Last Confession’ by C.C. Humphreys.
I constantly found myself doing quick Wikipedia searches of other people mentioned throughout the book and looking up the locations in Google Maps.
So interesting, it basically reads like fiction.
I constantly found myself doing quick Wikipedia searches of other people mentioned throughout the book and looking up the locations in Google Maps.
So interesting, it basically reads like fiction.
January 4, 2011
If you have any interest in this man ... this is a fabulous book to read... none of that Hollywood crap ... his life was quite incredible
June 23, 2025
Dracula, Prince of Many Faces by Radu Florescu – the ‘original’ Dracula by Bram Stoker has a very respectable (somewhat, or entirely undeserved, if you ask me) spot on The Greatest Books of All Time site – 78th – and this is where I insert, Jesus so ineffectively, my advertising for the blog I patronize, where I have hundreds of reviews nobody is interested in, well, about thirty clicks per day is close to virtual death, no matter how much one is kicking here https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20...
I know I will have a look at Orange Dracul aka TACO Man versus Vlad the Impaler
8 out of 10
I have actually written two notes on Dracula https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... seeing as this was such an important character in my life, not just because I was born in ‘the land of the Vampire’, but I made my money in the hospitality business, at least initially
In what regards this Prince of Many Faces, I have met Radu Florescu, even sat at lunch with him, in the days when I worked for AT&T (which comes from American Telephone and Telegraph) in the nineties, and that was at an American Chamber of Commerce in Bucharest event, I even remember the venue, near Heratsrau
Furthermore, I mat the son of the writer, who used to be a big shot (a bit, or very pretentious as a result) heading Saatchi & Saatchi locally, buying tickets from the agency where I was a junior partner, they had an office near Sfanta Vineri, which is where we rent the apartment now, so many interesting things I am telling you…
- Right?
Vlad the Impaler is the one who inspired Bram Stoker https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... Vlad The Impaler aka Vlad Tepes is the protagonist of Prince of Many Faces, Florescu senior was in fact a historian, I don’t know if he is still alive
In my peregrinations I took along people form the US, UK, Canadian and other embassies, their visitors, families, and hoi polloi, and had to indulge in the most horrifying stories associated with The Impaler, because he was the inspiration of what is one of the best-known personages in the world, indeed, he was the very
- Reason why some of them came here, maybe most of pleasure guests
Now I have to get to one of my favorite targets in those notes, the Orange Dracula, Woland of America, now called
- TACO Man
A nickname he hates, I was just watching Jimmy Kimmel, who was laughing at this, asking the ‘very stable genius’ – who has changed tariffs Fifty times (50!) in the few months since he arrived at the White House – how does it feel like to be at the receiving end of nicknames, the ghoul is known for the way he insults everybody
TACO Man comes from
- Wall Street and it reflects Trump Always Chickens Out, given that he announced huge figures, then changed, and again, and they have now all sorts of funny pictures, memes, the idiot with a Chicken in his hair, check the net for those
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Hermitage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
I know I will have a look at Orange Dracul aka TACO Man versus Vlad the Impaler
8 out of 10
I have actually written two notes on Dracula https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... seeing as this was such an important character in my life, not just because I was born in ‘the land of the Vampire’, but I made my money in the hospitality business, at least initially
In what regards this Prince of Many Faces, I have met Radu Florescu, even sat at lunch with him, in the days when I worked for AT&T (which comes from American Telephone and Telegraph) in the nineties, and that was at an American Chamber of Commerce in Bucharest event, I even remember the venue, near Heratsrau
Furthermore, I mat the son of the writer, who used to be a big shot (a bit, or very pretentious as a result) heading Saatchi & Saatchi locally, buying tickets from the agency where I was a junior partner, they had an office near Sfanta Vineri, which is where we rent the apartment now, so many interesting things I am telling you…
- Right?
Vlad the Impaler is the one who inspired Bram Stoker https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... Vlad The Impaler aka Vlad Tepes is the protagonist of Prince of Many Faces, Florescu senior was in fact a historian, I don’t know if he is still alive
In my peregrinations I took along people form the US, UK, Canadian and other embassies, their visitors, families, and hoi polloi, and had to indulge in the most horrifying stories associated with The Impaler, because he was the inspiration of what is one of the best-known personages in the world, indeed, he was the very
- Reason why some of them came here, maybe most of pleasure guests
Now I have to get to one of my favorite targets in those notes, the Orange Dracula, Woland of America, now called
- TACO Man
A nickname he hates, I was just watching Jimmy Kimmel, who was laughing at this, asking the ‘very stable genius’ – who has changed tariffs Fifty times (50!) in the few months since he arrived at the White House – how does it feel like to be at the receiving end of nicknames, the ghoul is known for the way he insults everybody
TACO Man comes from
- Wall Street and it reflects Trump Always Chickens Out, given that he announced huge figures, then changed, and again, and they have now all sorts of funny pictures, memes, the idiot with a Chicken in his hair, check the net for those
Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se
There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know
As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...
Some favorite quotes from To The Hermitage and other works
‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’
October 4, 2023
Enormously entertaining biography of a much mythologized figure.
I think the research evident in this book is very impressive. I learned a ton about Vlad III "The Impaler" Dracula through the authors' extensive use of contemporary anecdotes gathered from all over Europe, which paint a picture of a very complex person. In short, it provides a geographic and political background for Vlad, starting two generations before his birth, summarizing his grandfather and going into detail about his father Dracul whose actions have direct consequences on Vlad's life. We get a full chronology of this from Vlad's birth to his death, including great detail regarding his early life in Transylvania, and his wardship under the Turks (we also get a surprising amount of detail on Mehmet II). The time as Voivode is the centerpiece which goes into gorey detail (witness accounts) ofall his famous atrocities against criminals, envoys, peasants, Germans, etc, as well as war against the Turks, they betrayal by his brother, cousin and allies. The parts of his life I knew the least about were his exile period and death, which are also covered nicely. The anecdotes used are usually contemporary witness accounts, with gaps filled by folklore. The folklore aspect is explained nicely in terms of historical value.
In addition to being a biography and history, the book also investigates in a really interesting way how after death, Vlad became demonized by Germans and the west who consider him a "psychopathic murderer", whereas in the east he was viewed as "cruel but just and heroic" eventually leading to him, fascinatingly, being considered Romania's national hero, knowing full well how brutal he was (this is primarily because he defeated Mehmet's invasion of Wallachia and spared the region from Ottoman domination, at least for awhile).
Related to this, the book looks at the idea of applying modern standards to historical figures, and argues that although by our view, Vlad's acts were gruesome, they were common in his time, and the western viewpoint of his insanity is likely the product of compounding embellishments over years, and he probably wasn't insane. The counter to this is that his body count is higher than most contemporaries, and indicates a great degree of paranoia due to trauma and abuse in life leading to his Voivodship.
Finally, the book takes a look at how (mostly) the German myth of the man evolved to eventually inspire Stoker's Dracula, which surprisingly is based thoroughly on many true geographic, Romanian cultural/superstious, and historical facts, with artistic license.
There are some negatives in the language, which I think mostly stem from it dating itself (written in the 80s). This shows up in the language when talking about Vlad's brother's and Mehmet's bisexuality, which comes off as distaste, and talking about the Turkish "oriental" culture, this is vague stuff though. The other way it dates itself is in investigation of how "modern" Romanians view Vlad, but makes conclusions that are almost 40 years old and post-communism at this point. Not the book's fault, would be nice to have a modern update!
Overall, 5 stars and honestly a page turner. Really fun and gruesome to read, with wonderful information and interesting analysis of the topic.
I think the research evident in this book is very impressive. I learned a ton about Vlad III "The Impaler" Dracula through the authors' extensive use of contemporary anecdotes gathered from all over Europe, which paint a picture of a very complex person. In short, it provides a geographic and political background for Vlad, starting two generations before his birth, summarizing his grandfather and going into detail about his father Dracul whose actions have direct consequences on Vlad's life. We get a full chronology of this from Vlad's birth to his death, including great detail regarding his early life in Transylvania, and his wardship under the Turks (we also get a surprising amount of detail on Mehmet II). The time as Voivode is the centerpiece which goes into gorey detail (witness accounts) ofall his famous atrocities against criminals, envoys, peasants, Germans, etc, as well as war against the Turks, they betrayal by his brother, cousin and allies. The parts of his life I knew the least about were his exile period and death, which are also covered nicely. The anecdotes used are usually contemporary witness accounts, with gaps filled by folklore. The folklore aspect is explained nicely in terms of historical value.
In addition to being a biography and history, the book also investigates in a really interesting way how after death, Vlad became demonized by Germans and the west who consider him a "psychopathic murderer", whereas in the east he was viewed as "cruel but just and heroic" eventually leading to him, fascinatingly, being considered Romania's national hero, knowing full well how brutal he was (this is primarily because he defeated Mehmet's invasion of Wallachia and spared the region from Ottoman domination, at least for awhile).
Related to this, the book looks at the idea of applying modern standards to historical figures, and argues that although by our view, Vlad's acts were gruesome, they were common in his time, and the western viewpoint of his insanity is likely the product of compounding embellishments over years, and he probably wasn't insane. The counter to this is that his body count is higher than most contemporaries, and indicates a great degree of paranoia due to trauma and abuse in life leading to his Voivodship.
Finally, the book takes a look at how (mostly) the German myth of the man evolved to eventually inspire Stoker's Dracula, which surprisingly is based thoroughly on many true geographic, Romanian cultural/superstious, and historical facts, with artistic license.
There are some negatives in the language, which I think mostly stem from it dating itself (written in the 80s). This shows up in the language when talking about Vlad's brother's and Mehmet's bisexuality, which comes off as distaste, and talking about the Turkish "oriental" culture, this is vague stuff though. The other way it dates itself is in investigation of how "modern" Romanians view Vlad, but makes conclusions that are almost 40 years old and post-communism at this point. Not the book's fault, would be nice to have a modern update!
Overall, 5 stars and honestly a page turner. Really fun and gruesome to read, with wonderful information and interesting analysis of the topic.
June 28, 2023
A pretty decent look at Vlad Dracula - his life, the period he lived in and how he came to earn the reputation that he got in the west. He is also the historical figure that was the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
The book itself is pretty old, just about predating the end of Communism in Eastern Europe (it was published in 1989). Thus there are a couple of references to places and entities that no longer exists - Yugoslavia and the USSR being examples. I am not sure if that also account for somethings that I didn’t expect to see in a “serious” book, such as calling the turbans worn by the Greek and Turks “ugly”, which seems unnecessary.
But all in all, the authors did a great job in introducing the man who inspired Stoker and who I believe remains a national hero in Romania. His exploits are certainly legendary, and his method of disposing of his enemies even more so. As a military leader, Vlad is certainly without fear - his night attack on Mehmed II’s camp during the latter’s invasion of Wallachia. Florescu and Radu did very well in covering them up.
We basically got to know Dracula’s life, and even that if his father, and his the power plays and political intrigues of Eastern Europe (the involvement of Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Ottomans) shaped him to become the man he ended up being. The writing is generally sharp and concise in these chapters.
For me the weakest part of the book is probably in the concluding chapters where they traced Vlad’s descendants and their fates, as well as the “many faces” of Dracula by German, Russian and Romanian writers. The first painted him as a villain, the second a realist, and the third a hero. Apt then, is the title of the book. I thought the coverage was a bit thin especially in the latter but this is likely due to the paucity of sources within reach.
All in all, if you are interested in knowing more about the man, this book does a more than decent job of doing the job. There may be more current ones but as far as I know, this is the only one that covers his life to such a degree.
The book itself is pretty old, just about predating the end of Communism in Eastern Europe (it was published in 1989). Thus there are a couple of references to places and entities that no longer exists - Yugoslavia and the USSR being examples. I am not sure if that also account for somethings that I didn’t expect to see in a “serious” book, such as calling the turbans worn by the Greek and Turks “ugly”, which seems unnecessary.
But all in all, the authors did a great job in introducing the man who inspired Stoker and who I believe remains a national hero in Romania. His exploits are certainly legendary, and his method of disposing of his enemies even more so. As a military leader, Vlad is certainly without fear - his night attack on Mehmed II’s camp during the latter’s invasion of Wallachia. Florescu and Radu did very well in covering them up.
We basically got to know Dracula’s life, and even that if his father, and his the power plays and political intrigues of Eastern Europe (the involvement of Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Ottomans) shaped him to become the man he ended up being. The writing is generally sharp and concise in these chapters.
For me the weakest part of the book is probably in the concluding chapters where they traced Vlad’s descendants and their fates, as well as the “many faces” of Dracula by German, Russian and Romanian writers. The first painted him as a villain, the second a realist, and the third a hero. Apt then, is the title of the book. I thought the coverage was a bit thin especially in the latter but this is likely due to the paucity of sources within reach.
All in all, if you are interested in knowing more about the man, this book does a more than decent job of doing the job. There may be more current ones but as far as I know, this is the only one that covers his life to such a degree.
April 25, 2021
About as good a treatment of the Impaler's life and misdeeds as we're likely to get in the English language. The writers, experts in the field, have read key original sources in the original language. This gives us a deeper understanding of his life and times than most other bios. There are several mysteries surrounding Vlad's life and death. And Florescu and McNally have their own ideas about these, but resist the temptation to pass off speculation as fact. BTW, though he was indeed a monstrous sadist, it's fascinating to see just how vicious and capricious OTHER contemporary rulers also were. The inter-bred, narrow, circles of European aristocracy seemed like a hotbed of megalomania and psychopathy. The book is a window into a world of war between and within families. Of ever-shifting alliances, where today's comrade -in-arms is tomorrow's mortal enemy. Where religious loyalties can count for everything or nothing.
Florescu and McNally were the ones who popularised the link between Vlad and the fictional Dracula. Not that anyone associated Vlad with vamps until the novel. Though Dracula isn't based on Vlad, and Bram Stoker almost certainly knew v. little about him, there are hints in the novel that Dracula is the vampirised Vlad, or at least a descendant. Moreover, the writer's notes show he changed the title from The Dead Undead/The Undead on learning of the word Dracula being associated in Romanian with the devil, though not yet, as he thought, synonymous with it.
I got this book in kindle format, and while English words appear just fine, when Romanian words with distinctive lettering appear, the hook-shaped accents on these characters look like they've been scanned in from Tipexed biro markings. Had the ebook version been more expensive, this would've annoyed me.
All -in-all, a fascinating read. Next time someone mentions vampires, you can impress your friends, or turn their stomachs, with your extensive knowledge of the real Dracula.
Florescu and McNally were the ones who popularised the link between Vlad and the fictional Dracula. Not that anyone associated Vlad with vamps until the novel. Though Dracula isn't based on Vlad, and Bram Stoker almost certainly knew v. little about him, there are hints in the novel that Dracula is the vampirised Vlad, or at least a descendant. Moreover, the writer's notes show he changed the title from The Dead Undead/The Undead on learning of the word Dracula being associated in Romanian with the devil, though not yet, as he thought, synonymous with it.
I got this book in kindle format, and while English words appear just fine, when Romanian words with distinctive lettering appear, the hook-shaped accents on these characters look like they've been scanned in from Tipexed biro markings. Had the ebook version been more expensive, this would've annoyed me.
All -in-all, a fascinating read. Next time someone mentions vampires, you can impress your friends, or turn their stomachs, with your extensive knowledge of the real Dracula.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews