Were vs. Vamp.

The werewolf versus vampire debate is either ages old or merely a "Hollywood" creation. Whichever is the case, it is, nevertheless, a fascinating debate. To save you time but also risk the cessation of your reading the remainder of this, I will tell you if I had to choose a side to be the victor, I would probably choose that of the vampires, if for no other reason than the fact that vampires would have more frequent access to their powers than werewolves, thus making the fur-covered supernatural beasts more vulnerable to their supposed arch-rivals.

But aside from the limitation of about only one day a month to use their powers of greatly heightened senses, speed and strength, there is another issue which seems to bring disfavor to the werewolf, that of the origins of both of these evil creatures.

Of course, different cultures have different origins for their versions of vampires, the related zombie, and werewolves and werebeasts of varying kinds, but I will stay with the one's I know somewhat, and point out a very obvious difference between the two.

Vampires

I've heard of two like, and one different, origins for the classic vampire. The first two are that of a deceased person, having died violently, or in some state of despair or unlove, becoming possessed by either a wicked spirit or demon. (I would assume that, if possessed by the latter entity, the vampire that would be formed would be significantly more powerful than the vampire formed by that of possession by an evil spirit alone.) The third theory is that the original spirit of the deceased causes his own corpse to rise again. (The obvious issue that would come up with the former two origins is how, if at all, the vampire has the memories of its body's previous host spirit. I really don't know the answer to that, and have to acknowledge there being some greater credence to the third origin being the most likely.)

Werewolves

Werewolves have one origin in popular culture, of which I am aware: A punishment by Zeus on King Lycan for having dared to serve the King of Mount Olympus human flesh, claiming it to be the flesh of an animal (a pig's, if I recall correctly. How this curse spread, I don't know, and it might be well accurate to assume the lycanthrope monster spread and multiplied from another source. But not knowing that other source, I must stay with the Lycan based theory.

Now for the glaring difference.

Whether you look at the creatures from a believer's perspective, or that of a curious skeptic's, there seems no plausible reason to believe werewolves would be as powerful as demonstrated to be in films. The reason I believe this to be the case is that while I have heard of a demonic component to the creation of vampires (see earlier in this post), I have never heard the same said of the werewolf and its conception.

That distinction adds an as yet unknowable quantity. While a wolf's strength is measurable, and a conversion of human strength to the presumed stronger wolf strength might be possible, there is no way to measure the power of a demon, nor the affect of the possession and animation of a corpse on its power. Now, it can be argued that such uncertainty is also reason to believe the vampire would be the weaker creature, and I suppose that's possible, though I doubt it, but the issue here is that of the probable strength of a wolf made human. of a man and wolf made one. To that question I would posit that the creature, while deadly, would not be as powerful, perhaps not even nearly so, as we are lead to believe.

The demon, if the cause for most vampires, is, for me, the key.

Anyway, Happywappy Halloweenykeeny.