Through the magic of fictional literature and cinema, Vlad Dracula and his legacy, along with his association to Transylvania, are inextricably linked in the Western world to the fictional Dracula and vampirism. From the publication of Dracula in 1897, to modern times, Romanians have made about as much sense out of this connection — and have been just as offended — as Americans would be if we were to discover that according to foreign legends, George Washington was the origination of Bigfoot, resulting in camera-toting tourists showing up in droves demanding to search for the lair of the hairy beast at Mt. Rushmore.

Despite Vlad Dracula's alleged cruelties, it must be said that there's no evidence or suggestion in Romanian history or lore that equates Dracula's life or death with vampirism. Even the Ottomans, who hated Vlad with a fierce passion, never suggested that “the Impaler” was one of the undead. They loathed and despised him enough in life, and were more than a little relieved to have taken his head as a trophy, thereby bringing a permanent cessation to his unbridled hatred and harassment of them in their endeavors to control the fate and fortunes of his homeland.

The Name Blame

An interesting anomaly concerning references to the historic Wallachian ruler is that Romanians invariably detest the name Vlad “Dracula,” primarily because of the association between him and the vampire of Bram Stoker's novel. In Romania, the preferred name is Vlad Tepes, or even the English translation of Vlad the Impaler, despite the probability that their historical sworn enemy, the Ottoman-Turkish Empire, had endowed him with the title. To modern Romanians, the transformation of Vlad Dracula into a vicious vampire by Stoker bears an offensive similarity to the slanderous stories of their national hero by the Ottomans and Germans hundreds of years ago and is simply reminiscent of legends that vilified a cherished champion of Wallachian and, ultimately, Romanian independence.

The Power of the Pawn

That Wallachia and Transylvania were treated as puppet states and mere pawns in the battle for supremacy between the Ottomans and the Christian states is of little doubt. Given the fact that Wallachia was a fraction of the sizes and populations of the Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, Vlad Dracula was able to assemble an army of many thousands, most of whom were untrained peasants who obviously believed in the sovereignty of their homeland. On more than one occasion, the relatively tiny forces of Wallachia faced down the incredible strength of two of the most powerful empires in all of Europe thereby giving them a reputation as a fiercely independent and stubborn foe. Because of his exploits and conviction in the face of overwhelming odds, Vlad Dracula earned a well-deserved respect in eastern European history. Given the odds against “the Impaler,” it's more than a little surprising that Wallachia and Transylvania weren't completely engulfed by outside forces of much greater strength.

From a military perspective, Vlad Dracula was an innovator of psychological warfare in stifling Mehmed II's Ottoman intention to stamp out Wallachian rule. His extreme measure of impaling thousands of Ottoman prisoners effectively convinced the sultan that he was dealing with not only a man, but an entire people who were loath to make concessions in any conflict and against any antagonist. Those tactics not only broke the will of the Ottomans to overrun his country, but gave the rest of Europe the conviction to stand against the growing Ottoman territorial expansion. Although Dracula ultimately met his demise toward the end of the Ottoman campaign against him, the main invasion force of the Ottoman's left Wallachia unoccupied by their vast armies, and they effectively abandoned the concept of sucking the principality into the Ottoman Empire.