Talk:Elizabeth Báthory

Vlad and Dracula

I think it is fairly well established the Vlad III did not, in fact, inspire Stoker's Dracula (see historical references in dracula.) Reference to Dracula having been inspired by Vlad should be removed. In the meantime...I have added "may have" to the sentence in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.177.92 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

surprised not to see link to Andrei Codrescu's 1996 book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.87.65 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite clear that Stoker took his antagonist from the historical figure of Vlad Tepes. Not only the name Dracula derives from Vlad, also the things that Dracula says about himself and his ancestors point to Vlad. Of course, that is not exactly inspiration for the story. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also removing the true statement about the bloodbath legends makes the Dracula sentence pointless.

It was also grammatically nonsense: "Like Vlad Dracula ... these stories have led to the modern nicknames of the Blood Countess and Countess Dracula.

So these stories and Vlad the Impaler led to these nicknames?

I reinstated the bloodbath myth (about which there can be no doubt) and reworded the Dracula bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confiscation

Her lands were also confiscated.

It isn't true. See the book of L. Nagy cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the Discovery Channel or the History Channel as a source is not valid. From my observations they mostly try to sell popular accounts rather than carefully researched facts. Her lands were not confiscated although that was most likely a strong bargaining point when the Hapsburg King, Matthias, avoided payment of his large debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.80.179 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

bathory-in-a-movie

Stay Alive, is one of many movies based on bathory's story, it is about a video game that if your character dies, you shall die that same exact way. you should rent this movie it is very cool. And suspensfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.226.146 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?"

"But on the court later Elizabeth was missing as also all her personal household and dependants from her castle. The only statements that were written down were said by aristocrats and people that never lived in or around her castle. All potential witnesses from her castle as also the girls that "were found by Thurzo on Dec. 30 wounded and locked" were never given the chance of speaking on the court."

Perhaps someone familiar with the subject should re-write this paragraph.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

She recorded her own evil acts in a diary which showed she ended about 600 people's lives. reputedly one of the most beautiful women in Europe and with a briliant brain. Apparently she had a dwarf that helped her torture people. The dwarf was later beheaded. These details I found in our university library. "The Enemy has opted 4 Oblivion!" (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this diary can't be found. --ResetGomb (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

I really don't think the word "Countess" should be in the title. I propose a move back to Elizabeth Báthory.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally put titles in the article titles, so, yeah, why was this moved? DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Do we need a discussion for this, or do you reckon this is obvious enough to list as uncontroversial? Page history shows that the move protection isn't due to consensus at this title, it's because of a Grawp attack, and the editor who originally moved has a long record of moving pages on aristocracy on dubious grounds. Listed at WP:RM as uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We do normally put titles in the article titles (Countess Alexandra of Frederiksborg, Count Aage of Rosenborg, Count Palatine Frederick Michael of Zweibrücken, Duke Anthony Ulrich of Brunswick, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, etc). That's according Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I don't see anything dubious about that. I won't insist on keeping the noble title in the article title, because neither the current title nor the proposed title would fit Wikipedia:Common name, since this woman is commonly known in English as Elizabeth Bathory (more than 600 sources refer to her as Elizabeth Bathory, while only 20 refer to her as Elizabeth Báthory). Such a hullabaloo about the word "countess", while nobody seems to care about this fact. By the way, it would be nice to notify someone about the discussion and refer to the person using second-person pronoun, rather than referring to someone who is unaware of the discussion using third-person pronoun (also known as talking about someone behind their back). Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

...at the time Kingdom of Hungary

...moved to Nádasdy Castle in Sárvár, at that time Kingdom of Hungary.

All places mentioned in this article were situated at that time in the Kingdom of Hungary.

In this form it suggests that there are nowadays not in Hungary. But Nyirbátor, Sárvár are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also reference to Slovak people is an anacronism. Slovakian nation was formed of different Slavic people under the Slovakian nationalism, a XIX. century movement limited to a narrow intellectual base. Mitochondrial DNA comparison of Slovakian and Hungarian people practically show no difference, so Slovakian people might be considered as Slavic-tongued Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.207.251 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

first written account of blood baths by Erzsebet Bathory

Though most accounts state that the blood bath "legend" began in the 18th century, there is a contemporary account written by the historian Bohm in latin that is located currently in the State Archives of Vienna. This account, written at the time of her Ladyship's death in 1614, was not influenced by the Bathory or Nadasdy families and therefore had no need to hide the more atrocious facts of the case. Remember, the Hungarian nobility did all they could to hide the facts as best they could...the witchcraft and blood baths being the most damning to the Bathory name and if such facts were divulged there would have been no alternative but to execute the Countess. As it was, the "inhuman cruelty" she was convicted of sufficed to have her put into perpetual confinement.

The manuscript translates to: "Though no words could be found to match the beauty of Erzsebet and her Venus-like contours, regretfully there is no denying that this most attractive of female creatures had taken baths in human blood, which actions led her to being imprisoned in perpetuity("Elizabetha S. Francisci de Nadasd Agazonum Regalium Magistro nupta, foemina si suae unquam venustatis, formaeque appetentissime. Eam cum humano sanguine persici posse sibi persuasisset, in codem per coedes, et lanienas expresso balneare non dubitavit. Tanti criminis damnata, perpetuoque carceri inclusa, ibidem expiravit anno 1614 de Augusti."

The only reason the legend began a hundred years later was because the whole matter was hushed up and the papers hidden away. Remember, Countess Bathory's name was anathema in polite company...actually, is was AGAINST THE LAW.

I maintain the Blood Baths were in fact, true. I see no other reason for the change to killing the daughters of the lesser Nobility if it were not that "blue blood" would achieve the desired results (since years of bathing in peasant's blood obviously did nothing).Dieblutegraf (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can believe the blood baths were true, but the experts on the topic conclude otherwise. Furthermore, we need pretty reliable sources to back up claims. This manuscript seems fishy to me, especially since the only source is a book that's been known to be very unreliable when it comes to this topic. I am removing it from the article pending a better source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Diary

This number became part of the legend surrounding Báthory. Reportedly, diaries in Báthory's hand are kept in the state archives in Budapest. The diaries are allegedly difficult to read due to the condition of the material, the old language, the hand-writing and the horrific content. [11] However, supposing such diaries exist, none of the many successive regimes which took power at Budapest during the following centuries had seen fit to publish them. A web page as source. It's the joke of the day.--ResetGomb (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

According to the sources of the Hungarian article, these sadistic deeds ware little more than false accusations in a show trial without any evidence and that she porpably wasn't crueler than any other countess of her time. It should be made more clear in this article that even though she was labeled a serial killer, it's propably a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Outright saying it's "probably a myth" would be taking a side, but that view must be clearly articulated and sourced to some reliable authority in the article somewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Vampire" or not?

I note that the article is categoried under Vampirism (crime). So how come there is not as much as a single reference to the Countess' "vampirism" in the text of the article? Or are we supposed to 'read between the lines' and imagine some of the 'horrific details' of her crimes for ourselves? Even the section on folklore and popular traditions doesn't mention this alleged "vampirism". If there is reliable evidence for her drinking her victims' blood that should be given here; if there is not the article should be removed from the category. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)