Topic: Is Transylvania/Wallachia in the CV universe more isolated than in reality?

[Dracula9]

we have those

1476 > "so there was this crazy warlord guy who had way too much fun putting ottoman turks on sticks"

vampire part of mythos > some irish guy wrote a book and then hollywood said "HEY LUGOSI, GET OVER HERE"

kinda like how baphomet and his likeness became synonymous with devilry and satan until very very recent times

feels a bit like you're clinging too hard to some convoluted explanation when our good friend occam has this one covered--the church covered the worst of it up and what they couldn't had its history either rewritten or fabricated into popular culture fiction (y'know, just the shit they've already been doing IRL for centuries anyway)

[Nagumo]

I think you're underestimating the amount of effort it would take to rewrite history without anyone finding out about it for centuries. Like I mentioned before, historians are very good at separating the myths and stories from things that actually happened. Taking your example about Vlad Tepes, just imagine all the documents you would have to forge (flawlessly) to make that work. You wouldn't just need wro write up documents that would cover his entire life, but also go forward and  backwards in time to place this completely made up historical figure into a genealogy. Secondly, you would also have to fake documents that detail his interactions with other, presumably real, historical figures (or if not also put effort into inventing them). Such an unfathomably large undertaking is bound to contain its fair share of slip-ups ("Hmm, this document claims to be from the 14th century but the language usage doesn't match up with that time period", etc) 

I'm not saying my own idea is the only thing that makes sense (I'm sure it contains it fair share of flaws) but I think it's important to realize that making a believable masquerade is actually quite difficult. I think there are strong indicators knowledge about Dracula and the Belmonts is quite well-known in Wallachia. In that case, the only way you could possibly hope to prevent the further spread of this information is to contain the area. Considering Wallachia's size in real life, this would be problematic as well. Howver, considering Castlevania's casual attiude towards historical facts, you could always just say Wallachia in the Castlevania universe is considerably smaller than it is in reality. I think that explanation works best with Castlevania's depiction (in my opinion, at least) of Wallachia as a gothic-horror fantasy land.                   

[Dracula9]

[pointing at the actual church in actual life intensifies]

[Nagumo]

Speaking of the church in real life, they actually really suck at forging history (see the Donatio Constantini). Also note that this was discovered in the 15th century.

[Dracula9]

depends on the age and who was fiddling with information--nicaean council was pretty damn effective

also i think it's a question of how you're looking at it--the way you've been describing it sounds as if information was being manipulated about the past FROM the future, which would have all these problems

when you're manipulating information as events are happening it becomes far easier to suppress and alter facts

[Nagumo]

That's true but (once again going with your Vlad Tepes example) I assume nobody anticipated the 1476 incident. Therefore, even if the Church would start rewriting history by inventing this Vlad Tepes individual right away, they still would have to forge documents about his earlier life (from 1431 to 1476). After all Vlad Tepes didn't just pop into existence in 1476. And if it would ever come to light all of that was fake (which would still be very likely), everything else that happend after would fall into dispute as well. 

[Dracula9]

i'm pretty sure a group that powerful would know of [vampire king devil guy] and would have a contingency or series of contingencies in place should they ever need them

again, i really think you're making this difficult because you want it to be convoluted, or something, because take a look at history and tell me how many "leaks" of church coverups got out over the 2000 years they've roughly been around "got out" enough to expose the whole thing and seriously defame the church's reputability, or coverups and history rewrites that have been passed that were disputed/discredited and whose discreditors weren't immediately silenced

compared to the list of things the church has gotten away with that we know of (and, mind you, we only know in good measure these things due to very recent occurrences within a question of a few centuries at most), you'll find the list of things they've been "beaten" over or failed in covering up for large swathes of time to be very, very short

[theplottwist]

Therefore, even if the Church would start rewriting history by inventing this Vlad Tepes individual right away, they still would have to forge documents about his earlier life (from 1431 to 1476).

And we know by Simon's Quest someone achieved the objective. Not even Simon knows that Dracula wasn't born in 1431 (assuming it was Simon who made his grave -- which is inconsequential because it still says 1431, meaning that someone still managed to manipulate everyone).

And I say "someone" because:

After all Vlad Tepes didn't just pop into existence in 1476.

Indeed, that is why he's called "Vlad Tepes" not "Mathias". it's another identity with a fabricated life of his own. The Church doesn't need to fabricate that much because Mathias already did the legwork for them.

[Nagumo]

How about this idea: the reason the Church was able to cover up the 1476 incident was because all of the local population at that time was illiterate, with only Church officials being to able to read or write.(I'm sure that's not historically accurate at all but Castlevania is very flexible when it comes to the finer details). The only thing the Church then had to do is order one or two people from their ranks to compile an "official history" of the area, leaving out all about Dracula and so on. At that point, it would be a case of written accounts vs oral tradition, and of course all the "rational" people would favor the former. That would seem like simple, elegant solution.

Of course, this explanation becomes weaker the closer you get to the modern age. Though you could apply Plottwist's point about Dracula only reviving for 5 minutes to explain why Dracula only exist as a legend.

I would personally prefer such an explanation above attributing Illuminati-level capabilities to the Church. That would just suspend disbelief to the breaking point.

[theplottwist]

How about this idea: the reason the Church was able to cover up the 1476 incident was because all of the local population at that time was illiterate, with only Church officials being to able to read or write.(I'm sure that's not historically accurate at all but Castlevania is very flexible when it comes to the finer details). The only thing the Church then had to do is order one or two people from their ranks to compile an "official history" of the area, leaving out all about Dracula and so on. At that point, it would be a case of written accounts vs oral tradition, and of course all the "rational" people would favor the former. That would seem like simple, elegant solution.

.........but I thought we all agreed on that?

I mean, the people are already very religious and supersticious, and in dire need of guidance. Any Church official with a basic knowledge of manipulation could easily convince these people that there weren't monsters and they were just mistaking warriors for monsters on a moment of terror, or could say those were illusions (think the Pharaoh's magicians trying to debunk Moses, but without Moses actually being there to debunk them back). The Church could try a myriad of things here to guide the "sheeple" to the "truth". Hell, they were killing innocents thinking women such as Lisa were witches. They were ALREADY being manipulated by the forces of darkness into seeing things were there was none.

I'm OK with this. Here is one case (in fiction, at least) where the Church lying to the people would really be for their best interest.

I would personally prefer such an explanation above attributing Illuminati-level capabilities to the Church. That would just suspend disbelief to the breaking point.

Well... I'd say that people who can literally put a press ban on Shanoa do sound like having near Illuminati-levels of control over stuff. And I use "near" only because I assume the actual secular governments weren't aware of the supernatural like the Church before 1999 (my assumptions being based on "if the government knew, supernatural shit would have been already weaponized for wars"). After 1999 it really does look like there is an Illuminati-level conspiracy to hide the supernatural.

[zangetsu468]

"It's a secret to everybody"

[Nagumo]

.........but I thought we all agreed on that?

I mean, the people are already very religious and supersticious, and in dire need of guidance. Any Church official with a basic knowledge of manipulation could easily convince these people that there weren't monsters and they were just mistaking warriors for monsters on a moment of terror, or could say those were illusions (think the Pharaoh's magicians trying to debunk Moses, but without Moses actually being there to debunk them back). The Church could try a myriad of things here to guide the "sheeple" to the "truth". Hell, they were killing innocents thinking women such as Lisa were witches. They were ALREADY being manipulated by the forces of darkness into seeing things were there was none.

That's not quite what I meant. This is just my head canon but what would make the most sense to me is that people from within Wallachia clearly know what's going on, they just can't proof it to the outside world (since the only evidence is just stories), and people from outside just believe it's all fiction.

I guess you could write it like later generations are starting to have their doubts about what happened. But at the same time I'm sure a large amount of the population is still convinced it's all real, even if they would only dare admit to that after having a few beers, so to speak.

So I guess we pretty much agree on this, there's just a little nuance difference, I guess.

[X]

I personally think you can't cover up the demon castle war (CV III). It was just too big. Dracula was literally taking over the continent of Europe and those that survived would have scattered to the four winds. Far more literate countries outside of Europe would have received some of those survivors and heard their horrific tales. Now, it is fair to say that they might not believe such flights of fancy, but nevertheless the accounts would have been recorded and archived. The Sultan of Istanbul would take the matter very seriously as his armies were butchered by Dracula when they tried to take over Romania. He would have alerted other surrounding nations and kingdoms to the dastardly deeds of a megalomaniacal vampire sorcerer, and they in turn would prepare for war from an invading army of darkness. After all a King's message carries far more sway then those of the common folk. In order to cover up an event such as this the church would have to be several steps ahead of everyone else. They would have to know well in advance before Dracula even began his takeover campaign and I seriously doubt that is possible.

[Dracula9]

>calling cv3 the demon castle war

burn the apostate for this sacrilege

[Nagumo]

The way the story went in both the original story of CV3 (the Japanse version) and in the main canon is that the entire incident was restricted to just Wallachia, though Dracula did have ambitions of spreading his influence to the rest of Europe. Of course, we all know what happens afterwards, and Dracula never actually managed to realise those ambitions.