The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

We all have different speculations about the topic, so lets try to be open and learn from others opinions. I am very interested in hearing what you all have to say.
A while back this thread was opened and there were all sort of facts and myths that we all contributed. It turned out to be pretty fun.


Ok, well to my undertsanding there is Lilith; mother of all vampires, rejected by god and heaven and mistress of "lucifer". Most believe she was the one who started the vampire world.

Others think it was Countess Bathory, but most dismiss her as insane and obssesed with an absurd ideal.

There is also Vlad III Dracula, (AKA Vlad the Impaler), otherwise known as Vlad Tepes. He was the voivode, or prince, of Wallachia. He was a man without remorse and committed atrocities against his people and his enemies....he prefered impaling his victims.

Last but not least, there is Cain. It is believed that vampires descend from Caine, who is said to be the first murderer, cursed by the one all mighty... God. He embraced 3, then those three embraced 13 and so on...Therefore, these were the beginnings of the 13 vampiric clans.

There are also some stories and theories that say that Roman soldier Longinus became a vampire after piercing the side of Christ on the cross, or that the first vampire was Dracula or a mysterious figure called the Crone. Some have even suggested that each of the five main clans in Vampire -> The Requiem had diff. beginnings....Or some believe that Judas, Christ best friend and one of his disciples became a vampire after he hung himself from the guilt of betrayal and punishment by god.




Obviously, there is more to this stories and I am just giving you a jist.


Care to elaborate? Give me your opinion?



Come one, Enlighten me ;)

Doesn't Matthias Corvinus have to deal with the Vlad Tepes legend? There are so many origins and legends. To narrow one down to a single fact is almost impossible.

Actually, I have another theory about vampires, if I may be allowed to present it? There is a tale that says long ago there was a tribe of First People (the first tribes of American Indians the Creator made) that one day took to drinking only blood and eating only living animals. They became sickly and lost their minds, but would not die. they soon stopped emerging into the sun, and took to living in the night time. Theres more to this, but thats all I have time for. And it is only tales of old, so don't take it in historical context, if you don't want to.

i honestly don't kno how all of these stories got started, but i would like to kno which is acutally the begining

Bloodysweets,

I dont think we will ever know...and if we do...I dont think we will survive to tell the tale.

*laughs*

Ok, who knows....Which is why we speculate and have fun with it ;)

Actually, Vlad Tepes wasn't a vampire. The only connection he has with vampires is that Stoker used him as a character model for his book, and a lot of his info was wrong.

As for a common beginning for vampires, I don't see that as possible. There are so many different legends from all over the world that it would be impossible to have one single source, especially one tied to the bible, as many of the cultures with vampire folklore have nothing to do with it.

I will have to review my informations to get the facts straight. I will try to post a response soon.

Xander,

About Vlad Tepes and Bram Stroker's Dracula....I can see how that would have many incorrect sources since the story was purely fictiona.

In real life, however, different people have different theories. I am not accusing Vlad Tepes of being a Vampire...I am just merely saying that he is thought to have been one in the Vampire Beginnings for all that he did, his cruel and souless actions towards humanity...which is what impacted people the most and what make him seem "vampiric"?


I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject, aside from the many other 'origins' that are to be yet explored. =)

Drazeus,

Thank you darling.

No denying that Vlad Tepes was bloodthirsty. At one point he erected a forest of people on stakes to scare off the Turks, and it worked. But though there are rumors about him drinking blood, there is no actual proof that he did so. These were most likely stories spread by his enemies. And the most famous pic of him shows him dining among people on stakes, which some claim show him eating the bodies and drinking their blood.

As for the novel Dracula, I was referring to locations that Stoker got wrong. The character was loosely based on a mix of stories about Vlad Tepes and local legends about vampires. But the castle he had based Dracula's castle on was the wrong location, for instance.

Based on the core of my Christian beliefs, I'm inclined to believe that Eve was the first vampire.

She fell from God's grace by enticing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. That, perhaps, was a way of sucking eternal life from him.

Deity,

I never thought of it that way. That is pretty interesting. Just like you stale chip in the sun metaphor....this is brilliant ;)


youve done it again!

Some of the stories are far to recent in history I think to be a beginning. As far as any of the christian based stories, they are for the most part based on much earlier stories and were made to fit into a new mythology. I think the origins have ben lost long ago and all we have left are later versions of the.

T hank you, my dear DarknessBound.

Arch, your point makes perfect sense.
Granted, vampiric tales may have began to dissipate years before the bible came about.

I was referring to the possibility that the bible is indeed true.

Given that Adam and Eve were in fact the first humans on the planet, that would be my conjecture. The corrosion of mankind began with a vampire-- Eve.

Given that possibility, you make a good point.

I've always considered Vlad Dracul to be the starter of all of this. Never had I thought (or heard of for that matter) of a Female Mother such as Lilith, but I like the idea of a female leader anyway. As for the countess... she was just mad. She had no idea what she was toying with. She unknowingly caused a ripple in our culture that led to stereotypical thoughts.

Actually I've always thought that many aeons ago the first vampire came out of the sea. Through years of vampiric evolution they have evolved into what we see now

Those are very interesting ideas on how creation of vampires were.... Unfortunatly I don't have any new ideas to share but still this was a very interesting forum.....

~Shadowmemory~

It is, indeed, very interesting Shadow.

It is one of my favorite topics.


Evolution and genetics are hard subjects to study, but once you learn and have the pleasure of knowing what it is all about...you find joy in sharing with others.

Any more thoughts?

Come on...I know there is some one out there just waiting to perplex me ;)

The true danger of having a vampire bat feeding off you isn't from loss of blood, it's from the possibility of getting rabies.

The bats have been linked to vampires due to their diet, their relatively ugly appearance, and the fact that for a long time little was known about them, and so they tended to be feared, as with most bats. This goes back to the whole nocturnal creature bit.

*bump* ;)

These are all great ,Like you said I dont know if we'll ever turely ever know .

Vlad The Impaler was not a vampire! Neither he was Dracula! That is just the sick imagination of a writer , who exploited one piece of information that he had about Vlad Tepes...this was a ruthless ruler, who had a strange fetish for dead people...he liked to eat surrounded by the corpses of his dead enemies and, just to scary his soldiers and also to be sure that all of his enemies were scared of him, he spread the word that he drinked the blood of his victims and thus absorbing their souls...He did drink the blood of his enemies only as a snack before the red wine...but he was not a vampire, the certain proof being that he could walk in broad daylight and also that he was killed and decapitated.
Matei Corvin was involved with Vlad Tepes only by the fact that he first aided Vlad Tepes in his military campaigns, and later he helped the enemies of Vlad Tepes by betraying him and leading him to his death!(what you`ve seen in Underworld is pure fiction!).

This is by far the most interesting thread I have come across in quite a while. I am still new to the theories and haven't decided as yet how or when or who the first Vampire was. I do tend to lean toward the theory of Lillith, but only from the angle of she being shunned by "god" and man.

Just my two cents...

Just one question: where in The Bible is mentioned Lilith?

Vlad The Impaler was a vampire only in Bram Stoker`s imagination who, by the way, was not even sure if it was Vlad The Impaler or his father, Vlad Dracul. Just being on this subject, the origin of "Dracula" is an error in translation... Vlad The Impaler`s father, Vlad Dracul, was named this way because he received the Order Of The Dragon from prince Sigismund... by that time, in the romanian language there was no word for "dragon" but the closest and representative word was "Dracul"...most of the neologisms from romanian language are the result of wrong spelling of the foreign words... Vlad The Impaler was called also "Drăculea" which, in romanian language at that time, ment "the son of Dracul"; also Vlad The Impaler was called Draculea because of his ruthless and scary nature, his desire for pain and sacrifices being greater even than his father`s.
Of course, an element of legend is nice to be told, but not base everything on it. I know that is said that legends are based on true facts, but when the historical facts are denaturated, it`s a little bit too much.
And I didn`t say that everything has to be based on The Bible, but I would like to know where the legend appeared and if there is some proof about it.

I am slowly learning of all of this and I too would like to know more about lillith. I came to VR to gain knowledge and because of all of you, I'm drowning in it. I love it. Thank you.

Ahriman,
You make excellent points I was not aware of. Thank you =)
I will research more on this so that our discussion might be a rich one.

You are right on one thing though, legends might be based on facts, but they are exaggerated truths of what might have really happened. When you learned the history and roots...you see everything in a different light and the legends as a far away stretched out illusion.

;)

I must say that I wrote so much about Vlad The Impaler because I am a big fan of his, if I might say so! He did very great things for the romanian people!
Otherwise, i would be proud of being mentioned as a creator of one of the lines of vampires... :)

Here`s a useful link for Vlad The Impaler:
Vlad The Impaler

I would say that vampires possibly had their beginnings at the point when our primitive ancestors began to ascribe magical significance to the blood. Especially in the idea that drinking that of the opposition might endow you with their better qualities. I think that's a decent place to start..though it's continuance, I feel, is a bit more complex.

You could use the more common argument that the lack of knowledge concerning bodily decomposition and viral outbreaks contributed a great deal, at very least, to the better known vampiric hysterics of eastern Europe.

Keep in mind that vampires of the day were most often seen to attack their own family, coming to them in dreams and pressing down on their chests(not unlike the Old Hag). This is interesting because it is not at all uncommon to dream of a loved one who has recently passed. Add to that the horror of a usually plague induced death, and the superstitions of the Church and peasantry..and you have a vampire. The virus spreads..and their is an outbreak of vampirism. This is the most simple continuance, as I see it.

Outside of that, it is reasonable to assume that early Occult scholars coined various traditions and exercises aimed at the drawing of energy. To them, it would have been common sense to think that if the life energy that left could be replaced..that perhaps it could restore vitality..perhaps even extend life inside or outside of this world. From this we have the practices that we seem in the contemporary scene today. I do not subscribe to the belief that anyone is born desperately needing that type of energy transfer, and so see it instead as a mere desire with an intended goal. Anything else just lives in the head.

- D

There are many a good stories here, and I appreciate as a viewer and reader of this post.
That its, main drive is theory based. For a theory to become fact, 1st it has to make sense.
That is to say it must make clear sense of fitting into all that is currently known. If it does not make sense with what we know to be true, then there is no point for it to be further studied. Secondly it must pass stringent test to see if it holds up to testing and can be accumulated into future research. That is to say can it be beneficially worked of both forward and backward, the third thing is it must present a working model the can be observed.
I mention this only because certain passages within this thread have tried to imply theory that has yet to pass all 3 of the above criteria.

One example, being Darwinism, as late as mid last century holes were being picked in Darwin’s theory. More recently with the onset of gene mapping brought on by the serge in cloning and stem cell research. 15 separate genes have been found within humans that could not be accounted for from anything or creature currently yet discovered.

This has placed a huge gap in the descended from primate or mammal part of Darwin and his theory. The particular genes that were discovered have like all genes. A two way street, to them. That is to say one could look at a gene and surmise from which piece of living tissue it came from, and its possible change as to where it could only go.
The odd thing about these 15 genes is that they cannot go back into a primate or mammal that we know of. That being said is clear evidence that we, did not evolve from the primate/mammal line.

All of this new research takes us no closer to how we got here to our current form. These genes also have proven beyond doubt that humans are a species separated from Cro-Magnus, and Homo erectus.

To find out more about these genes just go to wikipedia.com and search around the human gene poll area and gene lists database and gene mapping ect. Just make sure you are reading the latest updates.

as always Phear is wise, but i believe Lilith; mother of all vampires is been -like Maria the mom of jesus- the beginning

Have you ever looked into the tale of Lilith, fabled first wife of adam, and the one who was said to have given cain his power?

I do know one thing I was taught,every story was created from a fact,and I would love to know what fact the vampire was created from,but in my opinoin,I think Valad the impaler is the one to be the truest.
(sorry for my spelling,I suck)

There are also stories of the first vampires dating back to Egypt.

Deity: You have a very interesting opinion. I have never thought of it that way, but perhaps you are right. That indeed does make alot of sense, (even for non-believers). I am going to look into this further.

There's also an Egyptian reason behind the beginning of vampires. Sorry I can't remember the details

umm.... Hi, where do you find info. on this type of stuff?

Info is all there on the Internet...for the specific regional info and languages, there are the allmighty books!

ah some one else realizes vlad was not a vampire although he is the most poplular one lol. But i actually think it started with lilith

id love to know the beginning. i dont know how those stories began though.