No, but even so, the whole point of vampires is that they drink blood, not that they eat human flesh. That's a different monster.
That's actually somewhat complicated! I believe there are some old vampire myths describe them as flesh eaters, and several mythological creatures from non-European sources that are thought of as vampires (either due to getting lumped together due to similarities, or their native language uses the name of the creature in question as a translation of the English 'vampire') also eat flesh. And, logically, unless they're physically unable to digest solid food, it makes perfect sense for a vampire to eat flesh. It's arguably a more efficient way to get at the blood. Less stylish, though.
Now, if you're talking about the modern conception of a vampire specifically, which is often defined mainly by drinking blood, that's another layer of complication, although linguistic instead of folkloric. The modern sense of the word was arrived at through a 'descriptive' use of language, while what you suggest is a 'prescriptive' use of it. That is, 'vampire' came to mean 'blood-sucker' because we used it to describe blood-suckers and not because 'vampire' inherently must mean a blood-sucker. So flesh-eating is outside the modern meaning of 'vampire,' but if we used it to describe flesh-eaters, then it might come to mean that. There's also the added rub that something that has many other traits associated with vampires but does not drink blood may still be called a vampire by virtue of being 'close enough.'
... anyway, I just noticed that the picture portrays Remi messily drinking blood from a severed arm, not eating flesh, so your complaint is irrelevant and this whole diatribe of mine is even more so.
That's actually somewhat complicated! I believe there are some old vampire myths describe them as flesh eaters, and several mythological creatures from non-European sources that are thought of as vampires (either due to getting lumped together due to similarities, or their native language uses the name of the creature in question as a translation of the English 'vampire') also eat flesh. And, logically, unless they're physically unable to digest solid food, it makes perfect sense for a vampire to eat flesh. It's arguably a more efficient way to get at the blood. Less stylish, though.
Now, if you're talking about the modern conception of a vampire specifically, which is often defined mainly by drinking blood, that's another layer of complication, although linguistic instead of folkloric. The modern sense of the word was arrived at through a 'descriptive' use of language, while what you suggest is a 'prescriptive' use of it. That is, 'vampire' came to mean 'blood-sucker' because we used it to describe blood-suckers and not because 'vampire' inherently must mean a blood-sucker. So flesh-eating is outside the modern meaning of 'vampire,' but if we used it to describe flesh-eaters, then it might come to mean that. There's also the added rub that something that has many other traits associated with vampires but does not drink blood may still be called a vampire by virtue of being 'close enough.'
... anyway, I just noticed that the picture portrays Remi messily drinking blood from a severed arm, not eating flesh, so your complaint is irrelevant and this whole diatribe of mine is even more so.
To be honest. I think Remi here just broke off the arm accidentally and just fed on the blood of the poor soul that was available. No. There are no Vampire written in history (Fiction or Non-Fiction) that fed on Flesh. That would be a Ghoul or a Zombie. (Chinese Vampires don't count) They are technically a Zombie.
To be honest. I think Remi here just broke off the arm accidentally and just fed on the blood of the poor soul that was available. No. There are no Vampire written in history (Fiction or Non-Fiction) that fed on Flesh. That would be a Ghoul or a Zombie. (Chinese Vampires don't count) They are technically a Zombie.
