The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

So many people ask me what a vampire is spost to be. I really know little about vampires. So tell me what is a vampir?

Excerpt from the VVC or Voices of the Vampire Community, FAQ
http://www.veritasvosliberabit.com/vvc.html


Q: What is a vampire/vampyre?

A: There is no single definition accepted by all members of our community. Each of us has a personal interpretation of what it means to be a vampire. To learn how individual members of the VVC view vampirism, refer to the Membership Directory page at: http://www.veritasvosliberabit.com/members.html


Q: What causes vampirism?

A: We have yet to establish conclusive proof of any one cause. The topic is widely debated in the vampire community. We can say that attributing vampirism to organic causes such as a "vampire virus" or damaged or missing mitochondria is based on fiction rather than fact.


Q: Can someone be turned into a vampire?

A: The majority of the vampire community believe it is impossible for anyone to be turned (embraced, brought across, or other similar terminology). Many believe we are born vampires and gradually become aware of our natures during a process commonly referred to as "Awakening."

Any other answers would be in folklore and that is something different and would vary by country. Also some have done studies and have conclusions of their own although that wouldn’t necessarily be by an academic. There is no such thing as a Vampirologist. It is not an academic label. Some have been called that due to their knowledge base but that is all it is. There are a few fringe people who have come up with their own ideas via research but it has not been corroborated and accepted as fact. They are merely theories due to researches that certain people have done and there are a number of people who have done this, and none have the same beliefs on the topic.

Depends on what origin and type you're talking about because there are many.

Folklore
A vampire is an undead walking corpse that sleeps duriong the day and feeds at night, sunlight does not harm it at all but it goes dormant as whatever animates it at night is not present during the day. They have ocd and they are ugly bloated creatures.

Dracula.
Undead walking corpse wit supernatural powers. A slight more towards modern depiction of vampires.

Nosferatu.
First to show vampirs burning in the sun.

Living vampire or Vampyre. (sangs/psy/psi)
Vampire wannabes, depressed with no lives so they imagine themselves as greater than what they are. Neither impresses anyone (unless they have the same problems) and they have no proof of being anything other than human. Drinking blood does not make them special, anyone can drink blood, its even a food option in some countries.
Some of these lot complain about feeling drained and fatigued all the time....yeah its called depression, a crippling mental disorder than saps motivation, energy etc making you feel lifeless and lazy.

Living vampire is a term only used by one segment of the vampire community and not the bulk. They have nothing to do with folklore perse. Nor the use of the word Nosferatu which Elizabeth Miller says it is an incorrect word because the lady that did the travel book spoke Hungarian and didn't understand Romanian well. Besides it is a fictional character anyway. Dracula was only a warlord/prince and had nothing to do with vampires...that concept is all fictional. The question needs to be posed as to whether you want the answer from folklore, modern culture, fiction or what or even region of the world.

One has to be careful what sites one quotes from as far as what is what. One can tell it is a young person when the use of the word wannabe comes up or poser and one should be very wary of the content. I would suspect I might know who the person is that wrote all of that and they have no real knowledge of the vampire community. They post things that everyone knows is incorrect like the hoax of a vampire virus and a long list of other things. Many groups are fringe so in the modern community some are tolerated and others are not. Those outside of the community do not know how to distinguish between the two and what is being stated to be fact or not be fact. That is why I gave a link in the previous post so you could decide for yourself. The members don't all agree on everything and they are from all over the world; US, Canada, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, South Africa, etc. They cannot just join. They are nominated and then voted on once a year. They have to have contributed to the subculture in various ways and be knowledgeable. The bios are there and any one of their websites if they have one will be informative if you are interested in the modern vampire subculture.

a vampire is something/someone/a creature that takes either by force or by agreement something to help them satisfy their carnal needs be it blood, psi energy or sex.
in old horror movies vampires were scary creatures but in modern times vampires can be anyone walking down the street.

"They have nothing to do with folklore perse. Nor the use of the word Nosferatu which Elizabeth Miller says it is an incorrect word because the lady that did the travel book spoke Hungarian and didn't understand Romanian well. Besides it is a fictional character anyway. Dracula was only a warlord/prince and had nothing to do with vampires...that concept is all fictional. The question needs to be posed as to whether you want the answer from folklore, modern culture, fiction or what or even region of the world."

Indeed but I never said living vampires used folklore, Dracula or Nosferatu but any inspiration the wannabes take are usually from the more modern fictional vampires that have the vampires dress all in black or in an old style which is why many goths and vampire wannabes are usually mistaken for each other, though some are actually both and in fact, the vampire sub-culture seem to have stemmed largely from the goth sub-culture. There is nothing special about them, they say feel different from other people but then people do! its called being an individual, everyone is different though most simply are sheep that flock in the same direction. (law and society)

That lack of energy and motivation that they feel is a byproduct of their depression whether its clinical depression or one with a cause. If they happen to have anemia, then they will still have the same same symptoms such as tiredness, weakness and fatigue. Blood transfusion is a treatment of anemia but there are multiple outcomes. Congenital erythropoetic porphyria which is another normal problem with vampire like symptoms such as photo-sensitivity though sunlight issue only started with nosferatu. Acute porphyria has depression and muscle weakness as symptoms as well.

Either way you look at it (living vampire, Sangs, Psychics, Ordo Strigoi Vii etc) its still a lifestyle with nothing special or preternatural about them, when asked for proof the usually excuses are that they are not allowed to say anything, so then why say they are vampires in the first place? The answer is usually but not always, attention. Just because this is a vampire site (vampire archive originally) it does not mean there are no level-headed people here to challenge them and it does not always mean they will be automatically believed, not everyone on this site is stupid or gullible.

To get back to the OP question.

These days there are many definitions but if you're talking about blood drinking then technically anything that consumes blood fits that definition of a vampire such as leeches, lamprey, mosquito, humans and most predators (since the prey they eat still have blood in them.) There is nothing supernatural or unusual about them though.

they say that elizabeth bathory was the first known vampires, i'm sure there was others, yes there were others but we don't know about them...we all know the story of elizabeth bathory right.

Yes, a human woman who believed that bathing in blood would keep her young (or so the story goes) and so her and some others went around killing a hell of a lot of people. She was locked in her home until she died....just like a mortal.

well yeah, vampires don't live forever unless you count myths and legends and fairy tales, those who practice vampirism do have a life expectancy just like any other person


Elizabeth Bathory - the Blood Countess

Elizabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess, is one of the most famous of all historical vampires. She is perhaps less well-known only than the infamous Vlad Dracula, known also as Tepes (the Impaler) and he - although noted for his savage and very public methods of execution - was no vampire, but has merely been cited as the inspiration for Bram Stoker's fictional Count Dracula. In fact, the historical Dracula is usually best known as a devout, if savage, Christian warrior and noted for his successful enforcement of the law within the Voevodate of Wallachia. Elizabeth Bathory on the other hand is renowned as a torturer, an eater of flesh and a bather in blood, and has been cited by prominent vampirologist Raymond McNally in his book Dracula was a Woman (which is currently out of print) as a closer model for Bram Stoker's creation than Tepes.

Bathory, like Stoker's Dracula, was a Hungarian1 of noble blood, whereas Tepes was Romanian; the Voevod, or Prince, of Wallachia when said title was not in the hands of his brother. Also, although his deeds were bloody, Tepes is never reported to have drunk the blood of his victims, while Elizabeth Bathory is reputed (admittedly with only anecdotal evidence) to have not only drunk but bathed in the blood of young virgin girls. The truth of whether she was a model for the Count will remain known only to Stoker, but certainly in the years since Dracula was published, the Blood Countess has exercised a powerful fascination on many writers and film-makers.
The Birth and Childhood of Elizabeth Bathory

Erzsebet Bathory, known more commonly in the Western world by the anglicised name Elizabeth, was born in 1560, the daughter of Baron George Bathory and Baroness Anna Bathory. George and Anna were both Bathorys by birth; he a member of the Ecsed branch of the family and of the Somlyo. Such inbreeding was not uncommon in the aristocracy of 16th Century Eastern Europe, as the purity of the noble line was seen as paramount.

The Bathory were one of the most powerful Protestant families in Hungary, and numbered warlords, politicians and clerics among its members. Elizabeth's ancestor Stephan Bathory had fought alongside Vlad Dracula in one of his many successful attempts to reclaim the Wallachian throne, and his namesake, Elizabeth's cousin, became Prince of Transylvania in 1571, and was later elected King of Poland. Other members of the family were less respectable however, including Elizabeth's brother (also called Stephan), a noted drunkard and lecher.

Elizabeth was highly-educated for her time, being fluent in Hungarian, Latin and Greek in a time when most Hungarians of noble birth - even men, who generally would have been better schooled than their female kin - were all but illiterate. She is also said to have been a great beauty, although it is unlikely that anyone would have openly said otherwise of the daughter of such a prominent family. At the age of eleven, Elizabeth was engaged to Count Ferenc Nadasdy, a skilled warrior and athlete, but as reported by his own mother's hand, 'no scholar'. He was - by varying reports - five or 15 years Elizabeth's senior. It was Ferenc's mother, Ursula, who arranged this engagement, one which would give considerable prestige to the Nadasdy family.

In seeking to divine the genesis of Elizabeth's sadistic behaviour it has been suggested that she might have been insane from childhood. It is said that the young Elizabeth suffered from seizures accompanied by loss of control and fits of rage, which may have been caused by epilepsy, possibly stemming from inbreeding. She was also able to witness the brutal justice handed down by her family's officers on their estates at Ecsel. One anecdote describes an incident in which a gypsy, accused of theft, was sewn up in the belly of a dying horse with only his head exposed, and left to die. Such tales afford a grisly reminder that her own acts - while excessive even by the standards of the time - were not so very far removed from deeds which would have been considered quite normal.
The Marriage of Elizabeth Bathory and Ferenc Nadasdy

In 1574 Elizabeth fell pregnant by a peasant lover. She was quietly sequestered until the child, a daughter, was born and given to peasant foster parents to be raised. In 1575 she was married to Ferenc in a gala festival to which the Holy Roman Emperor himself, Maximillian II, was invited, sending a delegation and a lavish gift with an apology for his unavoidable absence. His reason was the danger of travelling in turbulent times, and there is little to suggest that he was seeking to avoid either family. Elizabeth retained her maiden name, and Ferenc added it to his own, less distinguished one, becoming Ferenc Bathory-Nadasdy

After her marriage, Elizabeth was established as mistress of the Nadasdy estate around Castle Sarvar. Here the Nadasdys enjoyed a reputation as harsh masters, and while much of Elizabeth's cruelty is doubtless due to her own nature, Ferenc is said to have shown her some of his own favoured ways of punishing his servants. There are also tales of the couple engaging in diabolic rites and patronising various occultists and satanists. It is unusual, although far from unheard of, for retellers of the story to claim that Ferenc was unaware of his wife's perversions.

Elizabeth is reported to have been a good wife in her husband's presence, but Ferenc was a warrior by nature, and frequently absent. To occupy her time she is said to have taken numerous young men as lovers. She even ran away with one of these, but returned after a very short time to her husband. She also spent time visiting her aunt, noted at the time for her open bisexuality, and contemporary reports seem to consider Elizabeth's sexual ambivalence to be an integral part of her overall perversion.

After ten years of marriage Elizabeth finally gave her husband children; three daughters and at last a son, delivered in quick succession from 1585 onwards. By all reports, Elizabeth was an excellent and doting mother.
Elizabeth Bathory's Crimes

It was in her husband's absence that Elizabeth is reputed to have begun torturing young servant girls for her own pleasure, although this may in fact have been a pastime to which Ferenc himself introduced her to. Her accomplices at this time were Helena Jo, her childrens' wet-nurse, Dorothea Szentes, also known as Dorka, a peasant woman of noted physical strength alleged to be a witch, and Johannes Ujvary, also referred to as Ficzko, a manservant sometimes described as a dwarf-like cripple. Among the activities attributed to Elizabeth in this period were beating her maidservants with a barbed lash and a heavy cudgel, and having them dragged naked into the snow and doused with cold water until they froze to death.

In January 1604, Ferenc Nadasdy died of an infected wound, reportedly inflicted by a harlot whom he refused to pay. Elizabeth transferred herself to the royal court at Vienna with almost unseemly haste, and took to spending much time at her castle at Cachtice (pronounced Chakh-teetsay) in north-west Hungary (now Slovakia). Here she took up with Anna Darvula, described as the most active sadist in her entourage, and, like Dorka, alleged to be a witch. Darvula was also said to be Elizabeth's lover. This was the period in which Elizabeth is said to have committed her greatest atrocities, under the guidance of Darvula.

It is also at this time that legend tells us that she discovered, on striking a servant girl who accidentally pulled her hair whilst combing it, that blood appeared to reduce the signs of ageing on her skin. The popular version of events tells how Elizabeth took to bathing in the blood of young girls2, although of the various horrific eye-witness accounts of her crimes, none describe these blood baths.

Elizabeth's proclivities went largely undetected - or at least ignored - until around 1609. In fact the Lord Palatine of Hungary, Count Cuyorgy Thurzo, probably knew of her activities much earlier. He was her cousin however, and to protect the family name took no official action, although he may have tried to have Elizabeth confined to a nunnery. In 1609 however, Darvula died, and Elizabeth seems to have taken up with a new accomplice/lover, the widow of one of her tenant farmers, named Erszi Majorova, and it was perhaps at Erszi's instigation or encouragement that Elizabeth turned her hand against a number of girls from families of noble blood but little wealth.
The Downfall of Elizabeth Bathory

The deaths of peasant girls might be overlooked, but the murder of nobles, even those of such limited means as those Elizabeth selected, could not go unnoticed. The King of Hungary ordered her arrest, and Count Thurzo moved quickly to save the family as much face as possible by affecting her capture on his own terms. On 30 December he led soldiers in a night raid on Castle Cachtice; as it was Christmas, the Hungarian Parliament would not have been in session, allowing the Lord Palatine to act unhindered. This raid supposedly found a dead girl in the hallway, and many other victims dead, dying or awaiting torture in cells. Dorothea, Helena and Ficzko were arrested, along with Katarina Beneczky, a washerwoman newly entered into the Countess' service. Erszi Majorova escaped capture in the raid but was later also arrested. Elizabeth herself was held but not taken away with her associates.

In January 1611 Elizabeth's accomplices were subjected to two hurried show trials, in which they gave evidence, almost certainly extracted under torture, and were convicted of their heinous crimes in a matter of days. In the second trial, another servant named as Zusanna gave evidence of the existence of a register, in her mistress' handwriting, which recorded over 650 victims who had died at the Countess' hands over the years. This evidence was shaky as the register was never actually produced, but it was enough to convict the servants.

Helena Jo and Dorothea Szentes were named as the foremost perpetrators and sentenced, as witches, to have the fingers which had 'dipped in the blood of Christians' torn out with red-hot pincers, and then to be burned alive. As a lesser offender, Ficzko was decapitated before his body was burned alongside the two women. On 24 January, Erszi Majorova was also sentenced and executed. Of those tried, only Katarina Beneczky escaped the death sentence, exonerated by her fellow defendants and also by the testimony of Zusanna.

Elizabeth Bathory was present at neither trial, and was convicted of no crime. However, when she attempted to flee, her cousin had her confined to the castle at Cachtice, although her family stubbornly refused the King's demands that she be tried for her crimes. While he was probably shocked by the extent of the Countess' deeds, the King's desire for justice was almost certainly in part due to a large debt incurred against Ferenc in his lifetime. Elizabeth's conviction would have allowed the King to not only write off that debt, but also to seize the Nadasdy lands, and those held by Elizabeth as a Bathory. Consequently, the Bathorys must have brought all of their considerable influence to bear to keep that from happening.
From the Horse's Mouth - Testimony of Elizabeth Bathory's Crimes

The following are examples of the testimony of the servants recorded at the trial of Elizabeth's accomplices.

... a 12-year-old girl named Pola somehow managed to escape from the castle. But Dorka, aided by Helena Jo, caught the frightened girl by surprise and brought her forcibly back to Cachtice Castle. Clad only in a long white robe, Countess Elizabeth greeted the girl upon her return. The countess was in another of her rages. She advanced on the 12-year-old child and forced her into a kind of cage. This particular cage was built like a huge ball, too narrow to sit in, too low to stand in. Once the girl was inside, the cage was suddenly hauled up by a pulley and dozens of short spikes jutted into the cage. Pola tried to avoid being caught on the spikes, but Ficzko manoeuvered the ropes so that the cage shifted from side to side. Pola's flesh was torn to pieces.

One accomplice testified that on some days Elizabeth had stark-naked girls laid flat on the floor of her bedroom and tortured them so much that one could scoop up the blood by the pailful afterwards, and so Elizabeth had her servants bring up cinders in order to cover the pools of blood. A young maid-servant who did not endure the tortures well and died very quickly was written out by the countess in her diary with the laconic comment 'She was too small...'

At one point in her life Elizabeth Bathory was so sick that she could not move from her bed and could not find the strength to torture her miscreant servant girls... She demanded that one of her female servants be brought before her. Dorothea Szentes, a burly, strong peasant woman, dragged one of Elizabeth's girls to her bedside and held her there. Elizabeth rose up on her bed, and, like a bulldog, the Countess opened her mouth and bit the girl first on the cheek. Then she went for the girl's shoulders where she ripped out a piece of flesh with her teeth. After that, Elizabeth proceeded to bite the girl's breasts.

- From Dracula was a Woman McNally, R

The Fate Of Elizabeth Bathory

Although she was never convicted of any crime, Elizabeth Bathory's family declared her a menace to their name, and she was walled up within her bed chamber, with only small slits for ventilation and the passing of food left open. After three years, a guard looking through one of the slots saw the infamous Blood Countess lying face down on the floor of her chamber, dead.

Elizabeth died in Castle Cachtice on 21 August, 1614. The bulk of her estate was divided, according to her will, between her children. She was taken from the castle and buried at her birthplace at Ecsed. She was to have been buried at Cachtice, but the local populace would not hear of such a woman being interred in their parish, let alone on consecrated ground. While the views of the peasantry would have been of little matter, it would perhaps be feared that Elizabeth's grave would be desecrated, bringing further insult upon the family name.
Truth and Fiction

As noted above, the most common story of Elizabeth Bathory's reign of terror - that of the blood bath - is unsupported by the evidence of any of the witnesses3. Moreover, the nature of the trial renders suspect all of the evidence given there, as said evidence was largely extracted under torture or threat of torture, and was probably 'tuned' to create the most vivid impression. However, the story of the Blood Countess has been seized upon by many writers and film-makers, for whom the heady mixture of Elizabeth's beauty, sophistication, extreme cruelty and bisexuality have formed the basis for many a prurient retelling.

It has become difficult to distinguish the facts from the fiction in the case of Countess Elizabeth Bathory-Nadasdy, in spite of - or perhaps because of - the wealth of documentary evidence in the case as many of the original trial records survive in Hungary to this day. After the blood baths, the most frequent embellishment is the playing up of her involvement with the occult, ranging from the simple presence of her supposed witches, through tales of the infernal rites she enacted in the company of her husband, to accounts of her maintaining a court filled with alchemists, sorcerers and satanists of every stripe as advisers. A similarly occult element brings in claims of the Countess' insistence on virgin victims. Such a stipulation is not attested to in the direct evidence, although prudence would probably have meant that most of the victims were at least unmarried. She herself is variously accused of witchcraft, vampirism and lycanthropy.

As always with historical characters and historical atrocities, the great risk in these retellings is that the brutal murders of Elizabeth Bathory's victims should become just a piece of background, their role as faceless victims cemented forever. This risk is exacerbated by the 'bad-girl glamour' which invariably accompanies Elizabeth's portrayal. As modern day serial killers become twisted folk heroes and objects of adoration, so Elizabeth Bathory's fascination pervades these stories, turning a cruel and twisted woman into an intensely sensual, sexual, almost romantic figure.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A593084

Thought you meant vampire as in the usual way. so my I responded accordingly.

vampirism is actually different from vampire as its more of a practice of doing something than a state of being.
So she may have practiced vampirism but she was no vampire.

Yes, she was not put on trial for the murders, blue bloods had a lot of power in those days.

a vampire is a bat, Desmodus rotundus to be specific

this is the only mammal confirmed to be a vampire that has been scientifically studied

no one ever said the definition was limited to just humans and only human like creatures could be vampires

Vampire Bats do not morph into humans either

here is the National Geographic page on Vampire Bats for anyone interested in more information:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/common-vampire-bat/

Vampire bats are interesting, they feed on so much blood that they are unable to fly for a time being, 10 mins after feeding , they will urinate.

A noun, that needs to feed off of things other than the normal food and drink.

i notice there are a few ways people spell vampires such as the most common "vampire" and then "Vampyre" i think it is done to denote something in particular, such as to seperate mythical vampires from living persons who practice vampirism and live the lifeforbidden

also, A vampire can be a character in a book, such as a mystery novel where the vampire is a tall dark mysterious figure sitting at the end of the bar who has powers of hypnotizing and manipulation to get what he wants to satisfy the needs of his female companions

well thats what i read in some dark vampire romance novels.

or vice versa - in the case of a Vamp, who is a predatory female who uses her sensuality and beauty to manipulate men. I think the term was first used to describe Theda Bara - a famous screen femme fatale of the silent era.

That type of vamp was a femme fatal it had nothing to do with vampires. As far as responses everyone is free to respond as they like but refrain from taking parts of my posts to do so if you please.

I am a writer and I have written articles on so many topics and done some deep research and one was on Erzsébet Bathory. The drinking and bathing in blood was written after her death by one particular author and became sort of an urban legend and even then she was never spoken of as a vampire. I don't know who the author is that is being quoted but it doesn't fit the facts, but interesting all the same.

Excerpt:

Supposedly as I have mentioned previously, some of the stories told about Elizabeth Bathory are believed to be purely myth, such as the fact that she bathed in blood. According to the BBC there was no evidence ever brought forth at the time to support this later claim. When they researched her life they felt that her sexual orientation had nothing to do with any of the crimes and her behavior was solely due to her sadistic tendencies, in other words she was a psychopath. Some had to do with the attitude of the times dealing with peasants. They did not regard their lives of much consequence so it was only after she started to torture and kill nobility that something was done about her heinous deeds.


Also they have noted that her behavior could not be chalked off as some complication of her having supposed epileptic attacks. Even with her rages she still managed to torture these girls for long extended periods of time. It was cold and calculated and she derived pleasure from it. It is said she sold two castles so she could support this fiendish pastime. When her accomplices, servants and others were arrested she proclaimed her innocence but there were too many implements of torture in her dungeon for people to believe her claims not to mention all of those who witnessed the crime scene that came to make an arrest not to mention the victims, some already dead around the castle. She was saved from execution by the fact she was an aristocrat and was immune by law from prosecution. The family put on pressure that no law would be enacted to exempt this fact and strip her of her titles so as to keep the money within the family.


There is no true evidence that she ever bit anyone, nothing more than she had to change her clothing due to blood stains in any documentation there is to be found. She was not a vampire; it is what is called an urban legend. According to Katherine Ramsland, the author J. Gordon Melton stated that “no testimony was offered at Báthory's trial regarding her supposed habit of bathing in the blood of her victims. No one raised the issue and no one reported it. Yet the records of the trial were sealed at the time so as not to embarrass the Hungarian aristocracy. No one among them was even allowed to mention her name.”3 He goes on to state that it was Laszlo Turáczi who was a collector of folklore who started the rumor that Elizabeth bathed in blood. Later writings came up in more contemporary times when there were vampire scares in Europe and suddenly writers were claiming she drank blood and had to have been a vampire even though there is no shred of evidence that she ever drank blood. Another reason for this belief was the fact that in Bram Stoker’s book Dracula, when the vampire drank blood he became younger in appearance. Some have extrapolated this to the legend of Elizabeth Bathory and the idea that she bathed in blood in the hopes of retaining her youthful appearance. It wasn’t until the 70s that two authors were making the connection to vampires concerning Bathory. They know that Baring-Gould was a source of materials for the Dracula book, but her book was on werewolf legends and it is believed that this accounts for the shape shifting idea into a wolf and the fangs of the vampire Stoker created. Prior to that there was no connection of fangs to vampires. Regardless of any unfounded legends concerning the Countess, it still seems very apropos to give her the title of "The Blood Countess."

I have a huge e-zine which I have had for a long time and I did some things on the 20s and 30s. Some I wrote and others are excerpts, etc. I spelled one of the things I stated wrong...I didn't remember, lol.

The twenties gave birth to many terms we now use somewhat differently now. One was the "Vamp." This meant a femme fatale. The term was used to describe film stars that had sexual allure. Most often these film stars were of Eastern European or Asian descent. Some of the actresses described as vamps were Theda Bara, Louise Glaum, Musidora, Nita naldi and Pla Neari and in her early career myrna Loy was described in this way.

As for things of mine that were responded to I will leave them as such because it is only personal opinion and not based in any facts especially if one has only reading knowledge. The first post is what should be investigated if you want to know what modern people believe a vampire to be. It is a word in one region and there are many other words elsewhere for the same thing.

i think we will be arguing to the end of time about what a vampire is, and never agree. however, i think we can all agree on what a vampire is NOT - and that is someone who sparkles in sunlight.

A vampire is a fictional creation which sustains its own lifeforce by feeding of anothers. I do however sparkle in the sunshine, but i think that's down to my moisturiser ;)

Hehehe...good one, CEJ. Perhaps you should try a moisturizer without glitter. ;)

Seriously though...re: vampires being fictional, I would tend to agree...were it not for the historical figure of the 11th Century Christian priest who called himself "Father Vampire" (Popa Upir). Slavic historians have concluded the written entry is real, does mean "vampire", and forces us to rethink both the historicity of vampires as well as who and what they really were/are.

like Vandals, Goths, Barbarians, Assassins, and many others - the original meaning bears no relation to the commonly accepted modern meaning. language changes. even the word sophisticated has been corrupted to mean something else (the ultimate irony).

in olden tymes, it was generally accepted that if a team of trained guards were soundly beaten and humiliated by "inferior" opponents, then rather than admit that you are utterly crap and incompetent to deal with a bunch of disorganized rebels, you infer to your superiors that the enemy used dark forces and had supernatural abilities. it sounds better than "We fell into their trap - there was two of them Sarge."

As each of us ponders the definition of "vampire", we each possess a different answer deep in our soul because our definition is shaped by our limited view, yet it still remains a mystery though because we do not truly know fact from fiction.

My definition for the name vampire is a social and spiritual identity and status within a given cultural framework from the Sacred Ubaid Race. It is not a being with mythical powers.

Excellent post and point, karnelius!

Great list of other titles and terms whose definitions have been hijacked in later times. And your example of how simply and explainably superstitions get started is right on topic as regards the Vampire and the traits invented and falsely ascribed to him centuries later.

Great fact of Human Nature to keep in mind!

Growing up my mother had a tendency (and she still does) to yell that I was a vampire and that I was born to suck her blood till she died. That is a Vampire.

I am going to use the term Vampire as a proper noun here. There are several categories/characteristics of a Vampire. I have neither seen nor heard of a Vampire with ALL the characteristics. Usually the traits would be scattered here and there. To have a super-Vampire would really depend on the Evolution of the Vampire.

Let's look at some of the traits of the Vampire and what matters to them. Some have a high intolerance to sunlight. Some have the ability to heal at a faster rate as compared to other 'normal' Humans... However, in some movies, the Vampire is portrayed as a being that can regenerate limbs or digits at an alarming rate. Humans cannot do this. There are theoris that our bodies and cells are too busy building defenses against cancers and such to focus of the regeneration of limbs. But there are some advanced beings that can heal fast. Continuing, there are some who firmly believe in the concept of Immortality. This is, Romantically speaking, one of the most important concepts ever to be debated over.

Everyone knows nothing is Immortal. Not even the Sun. I am speaking of Immortality running in millions, maybe even billion of years. Does one have to be an Immortal to be considered a Vampire? One would not think so realistically speaking. But Romantically, yes, one would have to leave a mark, albeit a permanent mark, to be considered an Immortal.

A Vampire, to me, is something... a creature... of the Dark. Its terminology is to be used by a Romantic or someone who views ther Vampire in such a way. Something Surreal. Beyond the boundaries and constraints of what makes a Human. That is a Vampire.

lordess - the last two paragraphs of your entry were the most interesting and intriguing. Thank you.

Immortality and rabid regeneration is something humans are incapable of but there are some creatures that do possess them, some lizards are regenerative and there is a creature, that can decrease its own age as many times as it wants. It is called Turritopsis nutricula, also known as the immortal jellyfish. It possess biological immortality and if one goes by the definition that immortality means never dying of age but can still be killed, then that jellyfish is a true immortal creature though they are still vulnerable to disease, plankton and predators.

To get back on topic, I believe lordess hit the nail on the head, A vampire is simply something that a human is not, though one thing for certain is that a vampire is something that a lot of humans want to be.

Half the things from holly wood you cant believe thats for sure, that is not what a true vampire is... but people will believe what they will like...

You are correct, randi ... in fact, easily over 90% of vampire fiction (including Hollywood) hasn't a clue what real vampires were and are. That's because almost all of it, besides being fiction of course, is written in the West and not in Central and Eastern Europe from whence these legends originate. What's astounding is when you discover just how differently they view their Vampires compared to how we do.

Great observation... thanks!

I believe that there would be some traits and stereotypes that have already been fixed in some people's mind about vampires... like how they must be of a fair complexion, tall, long hair, sharp teeth and all that... The only vampires I know are the ones I have come to befriend in literature, music and the silver screen... I am sure there are vampires around, going about their daily routine in the physical world, but I have not met them. Nor am I acquainted with them.

I do not know if this is a vampiric trait, but I have always admired the neck of a person. To me that is the most beautiful part of the body. No, before you run and hide or begin to ostracise me, I do not wish to suck your blood, nor do I have the means to do so. But yes, I think the neck is very intriguing. :)

The Aztec's had Cihuateteo, the Malaysians - Penanggalan, the Japanese - Kitsune, then there is the Qarinah of Arabian mythology.

Almost every continent, every country and culture has had creatures that were precursors to the idea of the vampire as we know it today. Vampirism has existed from the birth of modern media and literature back to the first of spoken and pictorial languages... dating all the way back to the prehistoric era. The Ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, Hebrews, Romans, Babylonians, and Assyrians all had tales of demons and spirits which are considered to be vampiric. However, despite the occurrence of vampire like creatures in these ancient civilizations, the folklore for the entity we today call the vampire originates almost exclusively from (11th century) Eastern Europe.
Some people have attempt to track certain mythologies as in Lilitu of Babylonia belief into Lilith of Ancient Hebrew and down the line, while others have tried to trace the etymology of the Slavic languages as they morph from traditional Slovak words like that of Upir into the Bulgarian version of vampir. The field of characters and comparisons is so vast that it's easy to become confused about the facts of any one origin story can be. What we have is a world wide phenomenon with a historical significance that spans all of known history... what we are and how we came to be verses how it all relates to the way interpret ourselves today is as complex , and rivials man own story of evolution.

So what is a vampire??
Well the most defining factor is that a "Vampire" is one that engages in Vampirism. Whether is done via the consumption of a physical substance like flesh and blood as is traditional with Sanguine vampires, such as those of the Vrykolakas of Greece or the Strigoi of Romania. Or be it by spiritual means such as in the form of emotional and sexual energies which is traditional with Psionic vampires (a.k.a. Psi) such as the Incubus and Succubus, or the Jiang Shi of China... it's all a case of semantics.
For me method is less relivant than the ideology of the act.

As a result I believe that most people within the vampire community would define the basic concept of vampirism to be anything which sustains it's own life (in part or as a whole) by feeding off of the life force of another living thing.

there is a bat and suppose the mosquito counts as one.some people absorbe blood and life force too

Severus... if you are referring to the Vampire as defined by post-18th Century Western European and American writers, then argument can be made that you will find somewhat-related (though not identical) "monsters" and buggaboos in the mythologies of other cultures, ancient and otherwise. However, this does not make such creatures the same as our Westernized fictionalized Vampire.

Case in point: In our modern Western pop culture, the Zombie is defined as a revenant from the grave who rises and then preys upon the living, drinking their blood and eating their flesh. But... would you consider a Zombie a type of Vampire?

Another case in point: In our modern Western pop culture, the Werewolf is also a creature who is created by having been bitten by another, that then "dies" and becomes an "undead" creature who also drinks blood and feeds on the flesh of the living. But... is a Werewolf also a Vampire?

The answer to both is a resounding "no" given that there are simply too many foundational differences to consider either Zombies or Werewolves the same as Vampires. We recognize this because both Zombies and Werewolves are so well known in our culture and to consider both to be Vampires is absurd! And yet, there are FAR more similarities between these creatures with Vampires than any of the ancient mythological creatures you mentioned from other cultures.


And might I conclude by pointing out that, if we are talking not of fiction but of the Vampire of history as might actually have existed... or might exist today... allow me to point out this key salient fact:

Despite the modern definition of the Vampire as requiring Human blood to live and supposedly responsible for constantly killing and draining living beings of blood for this purpose, yet in all of recorded history we do not find a single blood-drained corpse attributed to an actual vampire.

Thus... yet again... it would seem this glaring lack of even a single blood-drained corpse requires a serious re-examination of the actual definition of what a REAL Vampire actually is.

Upir,
Thank you for being the first to present research material that stands up to independent scrutiny. As all other "sources" have been alluded to, or simply not existent.

Wow, MS ... thank you.

I share bits and pieces, only. The real "meat and potatoes" I continue to discover I keep to myself. Once you uncover the actual historical path (not of belief or philosophy or ritual)... it's simply a matter of following it and it just keeps revealing greater and greater discoveries the further you go. Here, I share only surface-level tidbits.

This question, however, is the single foundational question of this entire site. Yet all too often, it is the one most overlooked because people already accept as "fact" only what they so ironically learn in fiction.

What I find the most notable, however, is how the news reports even up to the 20th Century of those caught pretending to be vampires in Central and Eastern Europe, those accounts where the townspeople were actually fooled into believing a vampire (as THEY knew and defined the term) was actually living amongst them... it was not for blood sucking or energy feeding that they were known. Instead, it was for one thing only: seducing women sexually. No violence shown, no fangs, no trying to drink blood... none of that. Instead, these imposters pretended to be vampires as THEY WERE KNOWN TO EXIST in their actual homelands: as superior lovers of women. And, most likely, they were revealed to be imposters by the towns women when they... hehehe... failed to perform as a vampire ought! ;)

Every says a Vampire is someone who drinks blood, but this is not totally true... A vampire is just another person like all normal people, but they have different abilities,. some can feed from the energy of others, some are blood drinks. there are many types.. and yes all vampires do die, just like mortals die, from different things, . only there souls don't die, but the mortal being does...

If you really are serious, I have written several articles about vampyres. They run the gamut of vampyre topics, from types of vampyres to vampyre traits, characteristics & much more. Most of what I've written can be found in my journal in the Vampyre section. There are many in my mentorship as well. Feel free to message me if you have any questions!

True COUNTESSROSE.

I believe that society will always want to label things they don't fully understand and I even think some people who call themselves vampire may do so, too easily.

The vampyr as I know them to be are generally those who have old souls, talk about previous lives or being "awakened", having certain abilities, and utilizing them to replenish the energy that gets depleted.
Some consider themselves to be daemonic (that also includes angelic daemons).

Generally, vampyrs keep certain things to themselves. They do not seek approval from others whom do not relate. Therefore, the vampyr is only understood by those who have the connection to them. Mostly for protective purposes and Code of Law.

Kitra, I can't help wonder... if vampires truly were as you describe them (talking about themselves to others in claiming to have lived many lives and possessing hidden knowledge while acting and dressing the part of a "mysterious" personality), how would they be any different from any other con-artist and charlatan out there likewise talking to others making outrageous claims about themselves?

UpirLikhyj, I can't help but wonder....do you believe that everyone is a liar because of what they could be is outside of your accepted perception?

My reasons for believing them is based solely on what they share with me personally. That's really all I have to say. lol

Don't assume everyone is gullible my friend...

I am interged by all the mess and arguments but I however don't think is a myth I believe there out there, and will be day we don't see the sunlight ourselfs, giggles maybe im dreaming but I do enjoy a good read on vampires, all your comments are nicely put well said :)

to each their own believe's I believe I am a sanguine so there is others that have the same feelings as me and some aren't into it, if not then why you here? laughs!

that's what I d love to Know.

Mark Twain was an interesting man but just because he said something doesn't mean he was right or that it is relevant to anything more than his opinion.

Someone mentioned the I, Y spellings. Originally it was to differentiate from the historical/folkloric vampire and the community and the use of Y was prevalent and still is among people who are not directly affiliated. Now it is looked down upon and is flipped around to mean fashion vamps more or less. But if you talk to those in South Africa their spelling is with a Y because that is the way they spell the word there. Views vary by country as well. I have read a number of studies, many of them humorous. One's that have been undertaken for 20 years or more and the conclusions they arrive at are a little out there.

As for werewolves, Barring-Gould wrote a lot on them and the original stories actually come out of Arcadia. There are legends that if you kill a powerful werewolf they will turn into a vampire. The hallmark characteristics for a werewolf was cannibalism and drinking blood. During famines some resorted to cannibalism and many innocent people were killed because they were thought to be werewolves. Stoker mixed the vampire together with the werewolf legends.

There are Houses that predate the goth movement in Europe. They are not so outspoken over there even now about the subject because of negative ramifications. They are very secretive. Now Americans bicker and argue over what's what and don't come to many agreements about definitions. There are divisions within their ranks. Unless you belong to this culture, it is hard to explain it all. They don't all dress in black all the time, lol. You could walk right down the street past someone and not know. I never call anyone a poser or wannabe because I think those tags are inane. There are a lot of ideas about the subject and no definitive answer that satisfies all. I know what I believe but its usually not what many post on the forum. Since I'm an Elder (I usually don't mention this because it doesn't mean much) in the community all I can recommend is reading what they say about it and if you are interested in how the idea of vampire has evolved in novels and film that is something else. I can say one thing that is a fact though as far as the American community goes, most don't drink blood. Outside of it, such as the TOV, they won't accept blood drinkers into their midst. They say they are unevolved and that they feed from the astral. They are considered a vampire religion with their own Gods and own style of magick. They are the one's that wrote the Vampire Bible that only applies to their organization. So to each there own, nothing is ever that simple. But there are thousands of people that profess similar things all over the world, some professionals. I know one who is a college professor in Florida. He also teaches Santeria and Necromancy. It's not so much that people are dark but drawn to the unknown.

I would suspect that "Kitra" is aligned with either Michelle Belanger's group, a member or likes its set up. There are others that use these designations. Not all Houses follow the caste system. I have only been affiliated with one that does and that was Ordo Sekhemu. It's a complex topic with many viewpoints. What is a vampire? Depends on who you talk to or who wrote about it and the area of the world. Upir has written extensively on the topic. Read what he has to say on his profile. See if it resonates with you. I keep an open mind when it comes to ancient history whether I agree or not with the end viewpoint by a modern writer.

The Problem is that there are no ``hard accounts`` of vampirism which we may prove.If we had captured such a creature,exhumed its corpse or in some other scientific way had proven it,then we wouldn`t be having this discussion.Each culture has different Versions of the Vampire,with different abilities,weaknesses and motives.
They are far too varied to be used as evidence and even though I do find some truth in Upir`s theory,it is still a longshot to say that it is 100% correct.In chinese culture vampires where more a Zombie,in Eastern they were cursed,in the pacific cultures they were Born with it.Too many disrepancies and different views exist to say definitively that a Vampire is a certain something.

I like to believe that there are many, like myself, who are unaffiliated with a vampiric order/house. Not everyone can be "regulated". My first taste of vampires were from the movie, The Lost Boys. Thus, till now, vampires, to me symbolized utter abandonment, illusions, and of couse, cute men. I am still under that illusory school of thought. I can be myself when I slip into the vampiric state of mind. Plus, like Nosferatu, we are Romantics at heart. Like you said, to each their own.