Time for a bit of silly fun.
Assuming the Dracula of Stoker's book existed, would VanHelsing really have even a tiny chance of defeating him?
this is my thought: This Dracula guy is a warrior prince that has been around for almost 500 years. He lead armies and defeated other armies that outnumbered him many times over.
he had the power to call certain animals to do his bidding, could dematerialize, etc etc.
so this guy is a military superstar with superpowers, and he is beaten by an elderly dutch doctor that was practicing blood transfusions before they had figured out blood typing.
right.....
ok, i want you opinion...do you think that if these two fictional characters had existed and were set against each other, who do you think would have won?
thoughts?
~W~
yeah i don't see VanHelsing being able to take down Dracula unless its during daylight hours. But even then, i don't see Drac leaving himself unprotected even during the day.
oooo look there, its snack that comes to me! ^,..,^
Actually they did a deadlest warrior on Vlad and the style weapons that were used in his time. It was clear that his weapon did the most damage and the cuts through the pig were swift and clean. lol Yes I actually watch that stuff every now and then.
But onto the point of the question, I think it would be very easy to take out Vlad simply because if he is in an coma-like state during the day, they have all the time in the world to plan their attacks and use that time wisely.
If there were anything protecting him, Van Helsing already came packed with supplies in hand and knew what to use.
Truth is, a person with no weakness with day or night has the upperhand and with the right skills to kill could take that mofo out :D
yes but they put him up against the deadliest strategist not a warrior, if they put him up against say Richard I
wait we are hypathetically concluding that dracula was Vlad right?
in the book dracula, stoker was basing his character on vlad dracula (that is what he was called during his life, and how he signed his name).
ill differentiate the two by refering to the vampire as Dracula and the actual guy as Vlad.
i really cant imagine van helsing beating dracula simply because of this:
drac was supposedly a great stratagist and in the book even van helsing comments on his great brain. why the hell would he expose himself, sleeping the day away in a big stone crypt with the name DRACULA carved on the side?
im thinking that if he can dematerialize he would be sleeping in the middle of a mountain or somesuch where a normal person could not follow.
also ever notice that van helsing in all the movies seems to like to go after dracula at night? lol
as for the deadliest warrior....hmmmm vlad vs richard I that would be a hell of a show.
i was a bit miffed at deadliest warrior tho because they just showed vlad as being a nut case. he may have been a psycho, but i dont think he was a total nutball .
but thats an argument for a different thread.
~W~
Yeah, I'm just going to answer the question.
Dracula.. hand's down. As a matter of fact, I think it would be pretty cool if they actually came out with a movie where the bad guys win! A Dracula movie where Dracula wins :)
well there are movies like that, its more of Bad guy vs. even more bad of a guy.
Van Helsing. Drac was stuck in the past. Why did he take so long to decide to leave god-forsaken Transylvania? Besides having to learn modern ways, the guy was in love, which right away marred his thinking.
Take away his dirt, employ holy water and the cross, expose him to daylight, distract him with Mina's charms, and what you have is not a warrior but a black-caped emo vampire.
I agree with Bloodmother. Dracula was mired in the past. Van Helsing was supposedly the way of the future, was open to modern thinking, and employed modern techniques. He may not have been a warrior, but it proves that thinking and planning can overcome even the mightiest foe.
after reading all the posts i have to say there are some interesting ideas here but me....i vote Dracula all the way, after so many years of exisitence i am most positive he would know a thing or two about staying alive...and destroying enemies
the mina angle was one that i had not considered...
but while its a chink in his armor, i think that he would indeed know how to hide, and know how to fight.
he can take the fight to van helsing and van helsing could only react.
do we have any programmers here so we can put together a deadliest warrior scenario?
~W~
Yeah, but he wasn't in Transylvania with all his circles. He was in London, out of his element. If you're talking hand-to-hand in the middle of the night, Dracula wins. But that isn't how Van Helsing won. He out-plotted the Count who was not in warrior mode, and essentially had no friends, except for Renfield. No vampire brides, either. He was still in the early stage of building his protection.
The love element cannot be dismissed so cavalierly, LW. Drac is not so interesting w/o that fatal flaw.
its true, I don't think that if Dracula had been in Transylvania it wouldve been remotely as easy as it was to kill him, even in the daytime. its sort of a home field advantage
bm, was not my intent to dismiss it cavalierly or otherwise, and im sorry if i came across that way.
i know that love can effect people, can distract people and otherwise make them act differently.
i agree with fred saberhagan that the only reason that Dracula didnt actually kill his hunters was because of his love of Mina.
now let me throw a twist in here..
in saberhagans book, "the dracula tapes" dracula returns years later to tell his side of the story. turns out that he faked his own death....after all, how was he killed in the book? a bowie knife! since when can a bowie knife kill Count Dracula???
lol
thoughts?
~W~
Stoker describes Dracula as a Szelkely. He was in no way connected to Vlad Tepes.
The Szekelys (or Szeklers) was a distinct group that emerged in Transylvania from among the Hungarian tribes, which moved into the area at the end of the ninth century. Others suggest an independent origin, possibly a lost group of Bulgars who had invaded the area in the seventh century. Szekelys claim a pre-Hungarian origin. Originally they settled in southeastern Transylvania, but in 1224 A.D., they migrated northward and relocated in the eastern mountains. The Szekelys formed a first line of defense for the Hungarians who controlled the Transylvanian plain to their west, and they developed a reputation for their bravery and fierceness in battle. (Had this saved, don't have the source)
I honestly think his distraction concerning his love interest was what caused his downfall. He put himself in harms way because of love. He thought he was all powerful and no one could stand against him because of his powers. As far as blood typing they must have been doing transfusions or be in the beginnings of that or how else would Stoker have thought of it? So I looked it up.
"In 1901, Landsteiner found that blood from two different humans, when combined, would sometimes "agglutinate," or form clumps, rather than smoothly mix. On further research, he discovered that blood cells are coated with immune response cells, called "antigens" and "antibodies." If they do not correspond appropriately, like keys fitting into their locks, a sometimes violent immuno-response occurs, which can include hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and kidney failure.
The discovery of blood types earned Landsteiner the 1930 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Prior to his breakthrough research, mismatched blood transfusions had been routinely killing people for over a century."
http://www.bookofodds.com/Health-Illness/Organ-Transplantation/Articles/A0822-Blood-Types
Dracula: ROCK!!!! Yes, he will be the winner. Also, remember, Dracula is protected during the day, by a gang of gypsies and at night, he is strong as a bull!!!
i don't remember the gypsies, i guess i need to go reread that book
How does one figure that Dracula would win considering he has a weakness to daylight and has to hide? Van Helsing doesn't have to do that. He maybe had only a wooden stake but in previous movies, he also had men to help and he did have the crosses and holy water and all that jazz. All they would have to do is work out a plan to attack during the daylight hours and dead Dracula.
Yes but exactly who or what protected dracula during the day that couldnt be killed by weapons they had? ;)
ok but a lich is an undead creature right? so that would more or less BE dracula himself. So even if he did have a Lich army, they would still be succumbed to daylight, so again who would be protecting him during the day?
but you kill a lich he just comes back until you find his phylactery
we are forgetting that there is much more to the myth of van helsing then we are saying. in one the myth they say that van helsing was as old as dracula him self. that van helsing was in some was the reason that dracula was condemned to eternal life of drinking the blood of the living. but back to the question at hand. i think that with dracula i must give the upper hand to van helsing as he doesnt have to worry about sleeping during the day in the sense that he will burst in to flames if he is exposed to day light. i think that with such van helsing would have the upper hand as he would have more time to act and plan out his method of attack and in essence he would be the victor in the end.
Van Helsing nailed him in London or in the suburbs of London, not in Trans where he had his lackeys. No gypsys. And gypsys are w/werewolves, not vamps.
the story was that drac got to london with about 20 (correct me someone if you know the exact number) of wooden boxes of earth.
he then spent some time apparently just hanging out till van helsing and the boys drove him out, and back to romania.
also recall that at least one of their encounters was in the daylight. the sun didnt kill the drac of the book.
also wanted to take this moment to say:
a litch???? wtf?
now...picture this. he was a statagist. yes, he was in love, but he was an ancient warrior and his first instinct would have been to protect his base of operations.
i think he might have gotten the earth from all those boxes, and put it in strategic places around greater london, and replaced the dirt with plain ol english dirt, so that it would be there for the hunters to find.
he let them chase him from england, and in his own home, where he was strongest, he let them stab him with a bowie knife...and since the sun set as this was happening, he could dematerialize, making it seem he had immediately turned to ash (thats pretty much what the book claimed). He could then return to england at his leisure, and pick up where he left off. even waiting till minas eventual death to call her to be with him.
as for killing him in the day....ya gotta find him first! he could have dug a grave in some vicars back yard if he wished, put some of his earth in it, and before the sun came, turned to a mist and just sank down to the friendly romanian earth to sleep.
ok...im assuming alot...but if i were drac, thats what id do.
:c)
i really do think the dracster would get it...but as i said before...
we really need a deadliest warrior sim of this! lol
LOL I have to say that I am on Dracula's side, a supernatural being and courageous warrior versus a old man. The odds don't look good for Van Helsing. Unless the Van Helsing is Hugh Jackman.
Dracula's side and also believe that with the love he has for Mina he will try his damnest to make sure he survives and she survives the fight so they can spend eternity together or if Mina doesn't want the gift to become his true bride then her lifetime she has left as a human
they do say love makes us stronger so wouldn't their love make him more stronger to make sure nothing happens to either of them and if Helsing and his compatriots hold Mina hostage feel sorry when Drac has them in his sight after tracking them down to where she is being held
but there is the side of the van helsing myth that states van helsing is not mortal but a immortal being. as the dracula myth also has undertones of the myths about the fallen. the angels who fell from heaven who became the first vampires who founded the city of enoch or the city where caine came to when he met Lilith.
Hey Van Helsing was a tough old guy with years of lore, wisdom and understanding of the nature of vampires under his belt. I think he could give Drac a run for his money and be a serious enemy, supernatural powers or not, Drac had weaknesses and Van Helsing could utilise them to win the day :)
Well sure he would have a chance. Dracula had his weaknesses too.
ObsidianFury....the van helsing myth? i dont recall any part of the book Dracula (where van helsing was invented by bram stoker) where it was hinted at that van helsing wasnt just a mortal man (altho perhaps a bit mad).
~W~
so we have alot of folks in the drac camp, and some in the van helsing camp...
so ...were it lestat vs van helsing...how do you think that would play out?
~W~
Lestat, hands down on that one, on the drac versus hellsing it would be hellsing...
Van helsing imo, it was what he did, took down the bigger nastier supposed monsters
lol lestat comes off more of a pansy to me compared to Dracula and my bet would still be in favor of Helsing.
yeah...i like lestat...
but i sort of envision vlad dracula as beating the crap out of him while he makes lestats girlfriend or boyfriend hold his jacket for him.
lol
~W~
That’s odd I thought I had already posted here!
I shall post it again.
In my opinion if these two fictional characters had existed and were to do battle against each other, Dracula would of kicked VanHelsings butt! Unless of course VanHelsing was able to turn himself into a lycanthrope ^^
VanHelsing as a normal human wouldn’t stand a chance!
If stokers characters were real the outcome could quite probably be the same. Dracula made the same fatal mistake "the giant" did against David, he underestimated his opponent. If one is as powerful as Dracula it would be easy to dismiss mere "mortals" as weak and incapable of sufficient might to strike down a near immortal vampire. There have been several battles throughout history where a supposedly unbeatable force is laid waste by a lesser opponent. It has been said by some that "Everyone has their Waterloo".
About what UpirLikhyj said:
I think this later add is just a fantasy story itself invented by Elisabeth Miller who obviously doesn`t like the historical character too much, so she wants him out of picture.
I have a strong argument that Stoker had some information abut Dracula and about Transilvania. And this is relevant to our littla fantasy that is elegantly proposed here.
There is a self description about his past that confirms my saying. Dracula description of the real character life seems very close to reality. Stoker deliberately choose a mysterious land to place his novel there.He describes the food and the population of Transilvania(probably he used other books as study material). At that time people use to write books (unlike too day and that`s too bad) after a period necessary for any writer and it is called documentation. Putting the character in an exotic place (and Transilvania`s still alive vampire folklore is still alive even today) and associating it with a majestic despot was one of the main fascinating things in the novel and it was obsessively intended by Bram Stoker.
In this self description(besides the fact that Stoker tends to attribute a Sekely descendance to Vlad) Dracula speaks about his bound to the PAST!
Not any past!
A heroic and terrifying past!
This offers the character majesty and also this will lead to it`s destruction.
Van Helsing knows the count is not a usual evil but a very powerful supernatural being who has great powers but he also seems to know about his main weakness: his bind to the past = his bind to the ancient and holy LAND of his ancestors!
This is important as someone before me said:
not a circumstantial weapon is used against Dracula but the knowledge and wisdom.
Van Helsing destroys all the places Dracula may rest! He does not confront Dracula directly because this might not be a good move.
That`s why Dracula is forced to withdraw and that`s why Dracula is weak when he is killed by the American`s dagger.
The opposing of the two worlds: the old obscure one and the new world of science(Van Helsing) and progress(Morris).
Stoker used a master technique in the plot and one specific for the Romantic period: he opposed two very strong characters: one supernatural and a science man with occult knowledge.
This gives dramatism and intensity to the plot!
For the ending he had an optimistic view as like telling us that th human race if uses it`s knowledge and wisdom... and hypnosis(lol) can overcome the forces of evil.
Of course we can choose our own and both posssible victories(of Dracula or Van Helsing) presents plausibility, because both characters are very strong and use different values and weapons(visible and invisible).
altho it strokes my pride that dracula was in the novel dispatched by someone of my ethnicity (texan), i still dont think a bowie knife (not a dagger, a bowie knife!) would take him out.
i realize its a fictional tale, but when has a knife ever been able to take out a vamp unless it has something extra special about it.
could have been because it was from texas? LOL
ok...admittedly that makes sense, but i still dont buy it.
lol
~W~
maybe if you use the dagger/knife to completely remove the heart roast it on a spit and serve it with a side of eggs?
Wat about the "little" thing used in Dracula movie frm 1992?
Could be a good choice.
;))
Yet as Dracula per say has lasted through the years and become some what of a master at war and killing, yet do you not believe in essence Van Helsing would have done the same, for if evil exists there in some remote way has the counterpart of good to vanquish evil, heck he might have enlist Buffy, or Kronos to aid him in his quest
I feel that it would be Dracula hands down over Helsing...
Just like there are different versions of Dracula.... there's different versions of Helsing also....
Why can he go against a better version of Helsing?
LMAO
Going purely on the Stoker version, I would say it was a draw- While Dracula had survived for centuries, he also had done alot of that on brute strength and animal cunning. Van Helsing, on the other hand, had brains, deductive reasoning, and a drive to win. But to me that would only seem to make them evenly matched.