@plottwist The thing about the timeline's description of the 300 years being bogus and Mathias living peacefully can not be true. Then we're basically saying that between LOI>CV3 Mathias did not grow in strength at all which seems a bit ludicrous seeing his power in cv3 and given how many years have passed.
Well, it's the developer speaking, so it is very much true.
Igarashi does say Dracula acquired magical powers, but not how. The numerous manual entries before him, however, say the same, plus specifying his "gaining of powers" to be through pacts with entities and studying of black magic. This explains his growing in power without the need of sucking up more vampire souls.
Studying magic on your own without disrupting order is still living quietly/peacefully.
Also living peacefully by whose definition exactly? He was still cursing God and defying him by defying succumbing to death, "peacefully" may simply be defined as not exacting any specific harm on other living creatures. Peacefully can still mean cursing God for 300 years as is implicit in LOI's ending.
If we keep broadening the terms "living peacefully" then we we'll get to a point were waging war on people is "living peacefully." Igarashi seems to mean by this that Dracula is living without causing stir. He's hiding. Which is how he managed to evade the Belmonts for so long while they hunted other vampires. Of course he can live peacefully while cursing God. But it's hard to swallow he'd "live peacefully" while kicking ass and running out of bubblegum.
I'll give it to you that he could send Death to collect those souls and still "live peacefully." Yet, as I mentioned before, the Stone's only specified powers are granting immortality and vampirism to its owner. I don't see how collecting vampire souls could add to his power in the offensive sense. But I could see it on the influential/political sense: If you absorb your reviving opposition, then they can't resurrect, therefore effectivelly diminishing the pool of powerful vampires at hand and, maybe, even have their troops submit to you.
Of course, I pointed this out before but what I said was regarded as complete madness.
Of the timeline not being released in Japan:
- do you have proof?
- so what if it wasn't?
- why was it released at all if it wasn't relevant?
Rondo was never released in the west at the time it was released, and that doesn't make it any less relevant.
1. It's a pre-order bonus for the US audience. But I have a gut-feeling this won't be enough to convince you, so I invite you to search for its japanese version.
2. If it wasn't then there is a very good chance IGA had nothing to do with it, and its built upon canon info, manual info and a bunch of assumptions (explaining the presence of the non-canon games in there, while IGA himself would notice the glaring issue with this, having already stated at the time these two games are not canon. Plus, Grant is not a pirate -- this is how westerners see him).
3. No idea. The true question is: Why release it to us, and not to the japanese? The japanese market had priority under IGA's reign, not us. His latest timeline, even, was never released in english anywhere. So, why is it relevant to us and not to them?
4. And East was the relevant market for the main franchise games at the time, because its developers are easterners, not westerners.
It also gives explicit details of not only when Mathias changes his name, but what was happening during 300 missing years. This isn't some slapstick EGM or IGN promoted timeline, this was given out with actual games which unless retconned by Iga, still stands.
Well, the US manuals also invent a bunch of bullshit, such as Brauner being turned into a vampire by the castle when we know very well by now this is not the case, or saying that Eric met Alucard when the japanese manual for Judgment never once says such a thing. These are also not some slapstick EGM or IGN promoted information, are they?
I'm pointing out what this timeline says because, contrary to you, I don't think this timeline makes it THAT explicit. As you said:
The timeline states that in 1476 Mathias changes his name to "Vlad Tepes", but not Dracula.
Which is wrong because Alucard was born many years before 1476 and already bears the "Tepes" surname. No way Mathias adopted the "Vlad Tepes" name in 1476. But it's very much plausible he adopted "Dracula" in 1476 because IGA has gone on record saying he thought "Dracula" meant "Evil", and we now know Dracula becomes the symbol of evil itself in 1476.
My best guess is that Mathias changed his name to "Vlad Tepes" before this, but not HUNDREDS OF YEARS before like this timeline implies. Only a few decades before. For two simple reasons:
1. Using the same name for hundreds of years is the dumbest hiding strategy ever devised;
2. Dracula's grave in CVII reads 1431-76, which are the dates of his "birth" and death, supposed to mirror that of the real Vlad III.