By now it's an argument that has been done over and over again. Google search it and you'll get countless results. Count Vlad Dracula vs. Edward Cullen... who would win, in a combat situation? Firstly, let's look over the abilities of these two:
-Necromancy (the ability to raise the dead)
-Power over the elements
-Battlefield experience as Vlad the Impaler
-The ability to drive people clinically insane
-Shapeshifting into either a bat, a wolf, or mist
In terms of powers, Dracula is the winner. He has everything that Edward has, and more. In a one-on-one fight, it is highly likely (if not clearly obvious) that Dracula would be the winner. Some could say that Edward would read his mind to know what he's planning to do, but here's my argument: Edward and company are supposed to be genetic/scientific vampires, and they have been shown to display portions of life in their bodies. (How else do you think that Edward got Bella pregnant in Breaking Dawn? Plot holes? Surely you jest!) Dracula, on the other hand, is undead by means of supernatural forces. It is to my understanding that Edward can only read the minds of living things, or things that at least have a soul. But Dracula has no soul, no heart, and no life at all. He's a true undead corpse, therefore it'd be impossible for Edward to read Dracula's mind, as there's no life in his mind at all. Only pseudo-life brought about by evil forces.
But what if it wasn't a one-on-one fight? Who still would win? Here is the support roster:
-Bella (super version, not her useless human version)
-Any dead bodies lying around
-Any animals nearby
-Any of the Cullens that he chooses to control
-The elements and weather
Hmmm.... tough call, but I'll have to go with Dracula again. The Cullens may work well as a group on the battlefield, but they're up against a guy who controls the battlefield itself. So I'll have to give a point to Dracula again.
But every monster in literature has weaknesses. So let's list them here:
-Not enough blood consumed
-A stake through the heart
-Not enough blood consumed
-No access to his native soil or coffin
Concerning weaknesses, I'll have to (reluctantly) give a point to Edward; Dracula's got a ton more weaknesses than him. But then again, that's what makes Dracula a good character, NOT an indestructable Gary Stu boy toy.
And finally, we have the actual conflict. In the book, Dracula takes his time with planning his schemes; he wouldn't attack the Cullens directly. Instead, he'd take his time and learn about their strengths and weaknesses while also keeping a low profile. Eventually he'd learn of the wolves and their advantages over the Cullens, and so he could use them to aid in his quest to destroy Edward and friends. Not to mention, on the battlefield Dracula could use nearly anything to his advantage -- if it were stormy, he could have a lightning bolt strike the Cullens. If it were raining, he could make the ground beneath the Cullens flood. Also, since Dracula was a war lord in life, he would know to strategize his attack before the Cullens even knew what hit them. The Cullens lack this kind of preparation, as the most battlefield experience they had was in the third and fourth Twilight books. Not to mention, they lack the evil of Dracula -- the Cullens can only go so far, due to their morality. But in life, Dracula was a legit psychopath -- he lacked any sense of morals or sympathy for the enemy. All that mattered was destroying them. So in the end, while the Cullens claim to be these super-powerful and super-wonderful people, they don't hold a candle to Count Dracula.
Check. And. Mate.