>>16
Stoker likely knew everything about Vlad, actually. "Background" wasn't very different, too, you know: he just swapped one Hungarian county for another, goddamn. He didn't talk about impaling, because he never wanted the two characters to be instantly recognized as one and the same, that's true. Not much people even knew about Vlad Tepesh. I guess, his intention was to be slightly more subtle on his character's origins and to perhaps even sparkle some funny debate, which always helps popularity.
Anyway, you claiming that Stoker's Dracula has nothing to do with historical Dracula, while insisting that Bible is certainly based on historical facts, is, if you pardon me, kind of laughable.