Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumas on August 09, 2010, 03:29:48 PM
-
So Negumo (one of my favorite debaters on here and I actually mean that) brought up an interesting question which sparked my curiosity. I would like to know if you prefer the back story of Dracula introduced in LoI or just classic Dracula meaning Vlad Tepes and your reasons why. Try not to turn this into a flame thread remember its all a matter of opinion.
-
It really shouldn't matter since they're one in the same, Castlevania's Dracula is different than all other depictions. So when you say Vlad Tepes Dracula, I assume you mean the 15th century warlord. I don't know how that would've worked in CV's world. The Mathias story can work because it adds several hundred years to the history, however they've yet to take advantage of this, but I think I recall some Japanese manual(s) saying Dracula was a sorceror long before he declared war on humanity. If they had used the historical Vlad's backstory, wouldn't it contradict the evil sorceror legend?
I guess they could've went the easy route & released LoI with the name Vlad replacing Mathias. Either way it doesn't bother me that Mathias "evolved" into Vlad Dracula. Same characters, different identities. I'm sure Lords of Shadow will have an entirely different Dracula backstory as well.
-
I'm not sure about this. On one hand I like to think about Dracula as an ultimate evil, some sort of vampire sorceror with no trace of humanity left in him. Him being Mathias Cronqvist take something away from that.
On the other hand Dracula being Mathias make his character more interesting and tragic then "Lord of Darkness" who want to destroy everything just because he can.
As it is in the IGA timeline, Dracula being Mathias doesn't really have any effect in the games, except for LOI. It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the games even after LOI release and in most IGA'vanias Dracula appears just for purpose of being killed in the next five minutes. There is no really any chance to show his character.
But that's how IGA stories works. So in the end Dracula = Mathias is another interesting idea that wasn't properly executed and practically doesn't change much in the storyline. Just probably makes AOS / DOS stories more legitimate.
-
I don't mind Mathias as Dracula. They already made CV's Dracula something that goes BEYOND historical Vlad III by saying that he was old in RoB, IGA just ran with that. People blame him for it, but he didn't concieve that plot idea. He just thought people might start to get confused at how the real Vlad III would've NOT been around 800s old in the late 1700s. So yeah, I'm fine with Mathias. People say his reason to transform into a vampire is cheap, but I don't see the "reason" as being THAT important, either. It was just the means to transform him into a vampire, the catalyst. What caused him to hate humanity was far more important, IMO, than what caused him to become a vampire.
And I've never been above the idea that Mathias shouldn't be Vlad III. People act like it's impossible to undergo new identities. You try to explain that Mathias changed his name to "Dracula Vlad Tepes" and they look at you and say, "But, but, Vlad III is a different person from Mathias Corvinus. Th-they CAN'T be the same. You can't change your name! Mathias will always be Mathias, and Dracula is Dracula!!". It's not hard to swallow, unless you fight it. I don't mind. There's been so many original takes on Dracula's origin in stories and films, it doesn't bother me that CV tried to make it's own. Set IT'S Dracula apart from others. I'm totally content in that and have problem with Matthias being butthurt because his love died, so he wants to dedicate his life to mocking god. Oh well.
-
I like Mathias as Dracula better. Keep in mind that it proves that even some good people can turn evil. Pure evil for evils sake doesn't sit right with me. For me, being the ultimate evil needs a sort of evolution from something else. In this case, we have a man who lost his wife, blames "God", becomes a vampire as a result as some sort of rebellion, and finally starts to hate humans (probably because humans murdered Lisa, who he loved). If you follow this, you can see that he hates and tries to destroy it, if he can. In essence, everything Mathias does is based on the premise that "I am a victim and I am going to get revenge." Sometimes the best people become the worst villains. You can also compare Mathias to Anikin Skywalker/Darth Vader from Star Wars.
-
Yes. Also, I liked how the ties between Leon and Matthias form the root connection between Belmont and Dracula. That both Leon and Matthias were holy warriors, fighting in God's name, but Matthias would turn against God when tragedy struck, and Leon did not. But really, both are almost different sides of the same coin. Leon just didn't choose to let his sorrow overwhelm him and cause him to curse God when he had to kill Sara. But yeah, I actually liked that a lot. It made the connections run deep. You start to see it as two good friends, "brothers in arms", that go through similar tragedies, and wind up coming to a fork in the road and both take different paths that, somewhere down the line, will cross(of course, symbolically, since it's the Leon's descendants that meet Dracula).
Besides, I never seen Matthias Dracula as NOT being a "surpreme evil being of pure evil". He DOES eventually become that later on(after Lisa is killed). He just doesn't start off that way. But yeah, after years of darkness, seeking to wipe out humanity, Matthias, who is now Dracula, IS the Dark Lord, the ruler of the Demon Castle. Just because he started his life as Matthias doesn't make that part of him any different. He was still causing great death and chaos through Europe during the time of CVIII. He's still the heartless, cruel vampire lord that all the townsfolk fear. That never changes.
-
That just makes him so less actually the Dracula. I see him as the Bram Stoker character, the original dracula, a part of that story line. It just has always interested me more to think of it like that.
-
Dracula.
-
I don't think they ever had the obligation to make Dracula the real life Vlad Tepes. They kind off played with the idea in CVIII but even so he was always combined with his evil sorcerer background which orginated in the novel. At the time that game was released Bram Stoker's Dracula hadn't been around yet. I believe the quite popular idea that Vlad III was meant to be Dracula was already around for a while (I believe it orginated during the 70's) but back then the historical figure had no reason evident from his life to return after his supposed dead as a vampire making it kind off a silly connection as far as "how and why" is concerned. Aside from that I don't think he has mostly the similarities as Mathias, his only really outstanding thing is that he likes to put people on stakes and the CV Dracula also seems to have a sadistic obsession with killing people in the exact same way. So no loss there. In the end I think they are roughly the same character anyway. :-X
-
I prefer mathias, because his origin story and delivery is so much more impacting to me.
-
I would accept Mathias more if there was another game with him. Leon should have a son or daughter who fights Mathias before he turns into Dracula forever. Or something. Dunno.
-
I love Mathias and the idea that Dracula was originally human. I just don't buy his being a "master tactician" according to the LoI story... Think about it. For nearly a thousand years the guy always uses the same vain strategy of kidnapping women and luring... who?... the Belmonts! Why not lure to my castle the only guys who can defeat me and always do? And he always sends out the same bosses after them. Yeah Death and Legion are cool but they fail their master every single time! I assume a true "master tactician" would have fired 'em a long time ago. Frankly I'd expect more from the so-called Lord of the Vampires.
I'm just kidding here. I love Castlevania since the very first game in the series. But I'm more pleased with the more original titles such as OoE which breaks that nonsensical cycle of Drac chasing trouble.
-
the time that game was released Bram Stoker's Dracula hadn't been around yet.
Umm the novel has been around since 1897 and the idea of Vlad III being Dracula was introduced in that novel. So its been around for a really long time.
Also I think its fair to say that Vlad as Dracula has stood the test of time longer than Castlevania being that the novel was introduced first. So it has almost 90 years on Castlevania.
-
I'd pick Vlad III over Mathias since in my mind, it's always been Vlad the impaler/Dracula in castlevania and not Mathias. Some have mentioned that Mathias' past is more tragic then Vlad's...I degress on this. Vlad was only 6 years old when his father was assassinated, his mother imprisioned/sold to slavery; either or, and his older brother was buried alive. Vlad himself was imprisioned by the Ottomon turks and being their slave, was sexually assulted. Now it doesn't take a detective to imagine the effect this would have on a young child. Vlads obsession of impalement would've been draw from such a tramatic experiance. When Bram Stoker wrote his book, he took the most frightening aspects of Vlad and created THE Dracula we all know. While Mathias' tragity was losing his wife, becoming bedridden (which he was faking) then blaming God for his troubles, that was almost a direct take from the Bram Stoker novel. Vlad was winning the war, the Turks get revenge by delivering false news of Vlad's death and his wife reads the note then throws herself out of the castle window. Vlad returns only to see her dead body littering the chaple floor. Then the head priest tells Vlad that by taking her own life she will not be saved. This, of course, pisses him off somethin' fearce. He screams out loud in hatred and shouts "I renownce God!!" Then whiping out his blade, he lunges at the chaple cross, stabs it and drinks the blood oozing from it like a waterfall. This was one of my favoret parts of the film seeing the stone cross bleed like that. A perfect christening for Dracula's begining. It's interesting to note that even the book takes some of the real life Vlad's tragities as well. The part where his wife throws herself out the window? That actually happened in real life. As the Turks and Saxon armies closed in on the castle, Vlad's wife feared for her well-being and chose suicide rather then any other horrible fate she might face. Another reason why I think Vlad is THE Dracula over Mathias is that Mathias had to aquire the Ebony and Crimson stones in order to gain his full powers and become Dracula. Bram Stoker's Dracula didn't need such things as he became Dracula out of shear will-power alone. He didn't need Alchemy-produced trinkets to assisst him. He did it all by himself. And since the original Dracula character isn't bogged down with the Emo looks or being a winer as IGA had made mathias out to be, then for me, Vlad III is and the only true successor to the title of Dracula and the only one worthy of being Dracula in Castlevania
-X.
-
I actually if you would compare Mathias and Copella's version of Dracula I think the latter has a better reason for renouncing god just because they mention that his wife's soul couldn't be saved because of the suicide and all while according to Lament (the manga) Mathias's wife died of uh tuberculosis. In both cases though I think their reasoning for their human genocide is way too exceggerated to be taken seriously and only makes them look egoistic.
-
I actually if you would compare Mathias and Copella's version of Dracula I think the latter has a better reason for renouncing god just because they mention that his wife's soul couldn't be saved because of the suicide and all while according to Lament (the manga) Mathias's wife died of uh tuberculosis. In both cases though I think their reasoning for their human genocide is way too exceggerated to be taken seriously and only makes them look egoistic.
Most reasons for human genocide are exaggerated in general.
-
Nagumo, I think you are confused. I am referring to Bram Stoker, the author of the original novel Dracula. The man who originally created the character. I think that is really what made the character famous, and what made him so badass. Therefor, the version i identify with.
-
Well yes but I wasn't commenting on your post.
-
Nagumo, I think you are confused. I am referring to Bram Stoker, the author of the original novel Dracula. The man who originally created the character. I think that is really what made the character famous, and what made him so badass. Therefor, the version i identify with.
Also keep in mind what LordsOfShadow is saying here, Bram Stoker created Dracula. He used Vlad III as his model for creating him. Therefore without that novel we wouldn't have the great Dracula movies of old which means we would never have had Castlevania in the first place.
-
here is the thing Vlad the impaler =/= Dracula. Dracula, the vampire from the Bram Stoker novel, the sinister, imposing, manipulative creature likely shared little in common with the historical dracula, personality wise. The character of Dracula is based a little off of Vlad the Impaler, Atilla the Hun, and a LOT off of Stokers personal friend Henry Irving. So here is my point, the historical dracula was not believed to be a vampire. the Character was. This thread should be between Mathias and Stoker's Dracula, because when you think of the vampire, you are thinking of his.
-
LordofShadow, you bring up a very good point. People's perception of Stoker's Dracula = Vlad III are a little off. The poll should be between the three:
1. Vlad III
2. Stoker's Dracula
3. IGA's Dracula
-
LordofShadow, you bring up a very good point. People's perception of Stoker's Dracula = Vlad III are a little off. The poll should be between the three:
1. Vlad III
2. Stoker's Dracula
3. IGA's Dracula
Actually to clarify it was between Stokers incarnation of Dracula since in his novel Vlad Dracula Tepes III was used to create Dracula. It also references the historical Vlad many times example being when they were trying to figure out the next course of Draculas plan Mina concluded he would return to Transylvania to regain his power much like he returned to regain his troops against the ottoman empire. It would be silly to put up the actual Vlad III as an option being he wasn't a vampire cause they dont exist, unless you are one of them loony people that think you can get energy from staring at someone awkwardly or touching them and making them feel uncomfortable. So the poll shall remain the same being that the real Vlad isn't a vampire and only has connections to vampires, other then drinking his enemies blood to inspire fear and possibly catching syphilis through Stokers novel. And also to clarify we are going by the novel not the movie version, reason being the novel obviously came out long before the movie.
EDIT: Also to clarify i placed Vlads name in there was because before Lament he was known as Vlad Dracula Tepes as mentioned in the Symphony of the Night manual and other games like CV 64. It was in no way suppose to be connected to the actual historical Vlad the impaler.
-
I think the point is that we are just arguing two of the many interprentations of Dracula and say who is better since both of them matter (or use to matter) to the storyline. Bram's Stoker's creation has little to do with since the series has never cleary refered to that version of the character. If anything they combined his dark wizard thing with Vlad Tepes.
Also, its actually debatable if Bram Stoker's Dracula has any connection to Vlad Tepes aside from his title since he is never mentioned in the writer's notes. That's what wikipedia says at least.
-
Also, its actually debatable if Bram Stoker's Dracula has any connection to Vlad Tepes aside from his title since he is never mentioned in the writer's notes. That's what wikipedia says at least.
Actually if you read my above post you would know that its not debatable if Brams Dracula has any connections to Vlad being that he referenced in the novel.
EDIT: Vlad is referenced a few times through out the novel so I would say that yeah Brams Dracula does have connection to the actual Vlad Tepes.
Also if it makes it simpler for everyone think of it like this.
Do you like that Dracula is Mathias or would you have preferred him staying Vlad Dracula Tepes as stated in Symphony of the Night and numerous other games. Meaning do you prefer Dracula before the Mathias idea or after it was implemented.
-
Actually I read the orginal version of the novel not so long ago and there aren't any references to Vlad Tepes at all. I'm guessing you must have read one of those later editions meant for kids/young adults or something because I recall reading one too that also took some liberties with the plot.
-
Actually I read the orginal version of the novel not so long ago and there aren't any references to Vlad Tepes at all. I'm guessing you must have read one of those later editions meant for kids/young adults or something because I recall reading one too that also took some liberties with the plot.
Perhaps you need to learn to read.
An excerpt from chapter 18 Mina Harker's journal
"Thus when we find the habitation of this man-that-was, we can confine him to his coffin and destroy him, if we obey what we know. But he is clever. I have asked my friend Arminius, of Buda-Pesth University, to make his record, and from all the means that are, he tell me of what he has been. He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland. If it be so, then was he no common man, for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest.'
And an excerpt from Chapter 25 of Bram Stokers Dracula. And that would be in Dr. Seward's Dairy
"The Count is a criminal and of criminal type. Nordau and Lombroso would so classify him, and qua criminal
he is of an imperfectly formed mind. Thus, in a difficulty he has to seek resource in habit. His past is a clue,and the one page of it that we know, and that from his own lips, tells that once before, when in what Mr.Morris would call a 'tight place,' he went back to his own country from the land he had tried to invade, and thence, without losing purpose, prepared himself for a new effort. He came again better equipped for his work, and won. So he came to London to invade a new land. He was beaten, and when all hope of success was lost, and his existence in danger, he fled back over the sea to his home. Just as formerly he had fled back over the Danube from Turkey Land."
So I would say those are good for starters references. I'll read over the book once more and add to that. Perhaps next time you should take your time, I know its a big book but you shouldn't rush through it for the sake of saying you read it.
And also that was taken directly from the 1897 edition.
EDIT: Also to note the reason he used "Land Beyond the Forest" was because of Emily Gerard's publication of The Land Beyond the Forest: Facts, Figures, and Fancies from Transylvania,. It was published in 1888 a few years before Bram's novel.
And I also noticed it makes more sense if I place my excerpts in proper order that and it was buggin out my ocd.
-
Also just incase you didn't know what voivode meant I thought I should put this down.
Voivode[1] is a Slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force. The word gradually came to denote the governor of a province; the territory ruled or administered by a voivode is known as a voivodeship. In English, the title is often translated as "prince", "duke", or, as in Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, "count". The Polish title is sometimes rendered in English as "palatine" or "count palatine", in charge of a palatinate. In Slavic terminology, the rank of a voivode is in some cases considered equal of that of a German Herzog.
The title was used in medieval Bulgaria, Bohemia, Bosnia, Croatia, Transylvania, Poland, Moscow (later Tsardom of Russia), Serbia, Republic of Macedonia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Halych, Volhynia, Novgorod Republic, Chernigov, Kiev. Later, voivode was the highest military rank in the principalities of Montenegro and Serbia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Wojewoda is today the term for the centrally-appointed governor of a Polish province or voivodeship (Polish: województwo).
In the Romanian medieval principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, voievode became part of the official titulature of the sovereign prince, showing his right to lead the entire army. Voivode or vajda was also the title of the Hungarian governors of Transylvania in the Middle Ages.
The leaders of Bulgaria's Haiduti (Хайдути) rebels under the Ottoman Empire were called "voevodes" (Bulgarian, singular: войвода, voyvoda).
-
The more this thread goes on, the more educated we all get... Keep it up! Boo yeah!!! :D Seriously this is all good stuff to learn about. It's a shame IGA isn't taking advantage of this info as well.
-X
-
You say you don't want none of us to flame eachother, but you throw a "lol learn 2 read" insult at Nagumo?
Anyway thanks for the history lesson and all, but it still doesn't change the fact that the games say Drac was a sorceror long before 1476. The book doesn't mention Vlad practicing dark magic and summoning demons, right? Despite the novel being canon, I wonder how much of it they actually intended it to be. If it were to be made into a game, I'm sure they'll replace Quincy's bowie knife with the Vampire Killer, remove the London parts & Harker altogether, etc.
So at the end of the day it bottles down to preference. You prefer Dracula to be this evil warlord since day 1 so you hate to see him characterized as a tragic once-loving soul, AKA Mathias. I don't understand why that bothers you so much.
-
The novel's not as canon as "certain ideas from the novel" is used in the canon. But yeah, CV's Dracula is it's own, no doubt. Maybe based more on Stoker's depiction, but then again, you have to question WHICH depction, because even with Stoker's Dracula, there are many depictions of THAT. CV seemingly takes the old Bela Lugosi movie Dracula as the basis for the "look" of Dracual in the older games, and every fan knows that the movie isn't exactly the same as the novel. Most of the Dracula movies differ, so it's almost like un-winding the strings down and down to the single strands. I mean, choose to deny it all you want, but the Universal depcition of Lugosi's Dracula is probably the most famous depictions of all time, being more recognizable than Stoker's actual story and Vlad III himself.
-
Anyway thanks for the history lesson and all, but it still doesn't change the fact that the games say Drac was a sorceror long before 1476. The book doesn't mention Vlad practicing dark magic and summoning demons, right? Despite the novel being canon, I wonder how much of it they actually intended it to be. If it were to be made into a game, I'm sure they'll replace Quincy's bowie knife with the Vampire Killer, remove the London parts & Harker altogether, etc.
Another excerpt.
"That mighty brain and that iron resolution went with him to his grave, and are even now arrayed against us. The Draculas were, says Arminius, a great and noble race, though now and again were scions who were held by their coevals to have had dealings with the Evil One. They learned his secrets in the Scholomance, amongst the mountains over Lake Hermanstadt, where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due. In the records are such words as 'stregoica' witch, 'ordog' and 'pokol' Satan and hell, and in one manuscript this very Dracula is spoken of as 'wampyr,' which we all understand too well."
Scholomance as wiki states was fabled to be a legendary school of black magic run by the Devil, supposedly located near an unnamed lake in the mountains south of the city of Hermannstadt (now called Sibiu in Romanian) in the Transylvania region of Romania.
-
I already suspected that you were going to quote that but since this are only a few obscure references one would wonder how deep the connection really is. If you want to argue about what the writer's true intentions were you shouldn't just use the novel as a reference but also his notes and the sources he used to make up his story. He was so kind to list all of them as footnotes.
The only book Stoker ever read about Dracula was An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia and that book only mentions a "Viviode Dracula" three times, and two of them actually refer to Vlad Dracul. Stoker wrote in his notes what he thought was the most important of all this info and that was that Dracula means devil. That book was the only source of information the writer ever used and it never mentions the name "Vlad Tepes" or "the Impaler". So really the connection doesn't run any deeper than a name Stoker thought was cool.
Also, don't be scared because I know all of this. I took this from a random website. :-X
-
I dont really see any obscurity in either of those quotes they blatantly say that Dracula is Voivode Dracula from Romania meaning Vlad Tepes III and he reference some of his past therefore he may have written down the name because he sounded cool but he used Vlad as the model for this character.
-
No, the book doesn't say he is Vlad III only that he was an army commander/prince/ who had the title of Dracula. Not to mention that the source I metioned actually refers to both Vlad II and III so I can argue Dracula = Vlad II according to Bram Stoker. Prove me wrong.
I should also once again make clear that the writer knew nothing about Vlad Tepes aside from his title and that he was a voivode who fought against the Turks. However there have been other viovodes who fought against them long before Vlad Tepes did plus the fact that he and the novel Dracula share absolutely nothing in common aside from those similarities making it evident that A) Stoker's creation is most likely a fictional warlord who just happens to have the same name and B) there is no point in making this connection anyway.
Also just because in the novel they mention his name is Dracula doesn't mean he is the actual historical figure since it all depends on what the writer knows about him in this case assuming there were two historical Dracula's. You have to see it from the author's perspective.
-
No, the book doesn't say he is Vlad III only that he was an army commander/prince/ who had the title of Dracula. Not to mention that the source I metioned actually refers to both Vlad II and III so I can argue Dracula = Vlad II according to Bram Stoker. Prove me wrong.
I should also once again make clear that the writer knew nothing about Vlad Tepes aside from his title and that he was a voivode who fought against the Turks. However there have been other viovodes who fought against them long before Vlad Tepes did plus the fact that he and the novel Dracula share absolutely nothing in common aside from those similarities making it evident that A) Stoker's creation is most likely a fictional warlord who just happens to have the same name and B) there is no point in making this connection anyway.
Also just because in the novel they mention his name is Dracula doesn't mean he is the actual historical figure since it all depends on what the writer knows about him in this case assuming there were two historical Dracula's. You have to see it from the author's perspective.
I could prove you wrong but Id rather have something else do it for me.
"Stoker came across the name Dracula in his reading on Romanian history, and chose this to replace the name (Count Wampyr) that he had originally intended to use for his villain. However, some Dracula scholars, led by Elizabeth Miller, have questioned the depth of this connection. They argue that Stoker in fact knew little of the historic Vlad III except for the name "Dracula." There are sections in the novel where Dracula refers to his own background, and these speeches show that Stoker had some knowledge of Romanian history. Stoker mentions the Dracula who fought against the Turks, and was later betrayed by his brother, historical facts which unequivocably point to Vlad III:
"Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when'' he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph!" (Chapter 3, pp 19) The Count's intended identity is later explicitly confirmed by Professor Van Helsing:
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land." (Chapter 18, pp 145)
Vlad II wasnt betrayed by his brother he was in fact murdered by Vladislav II but there really isnt any mention of Vlad II's brother. EDIT: or if he ever had a brother I cant really seem to find any info that he had one.
So that kills your silly argument that it couldve been Vlad II. And if he just read the name and thought it was cool then he would have just used the name and not use anything from his past.
-
Oh I did find his brother his name was Alexandru I Aldea and he died partway through his rule and was replaced with Vlad II. There is no historical information stating anywhere that he betrayed Vlad II at any point of his life. But heres a tidbit about Vlad III brother
"However, in 1462 a massive Ottoman army marched against Wallachia, and Radu was commander of the Romanian Janissary. Vlad fled quickly to Transylvania fearing the Ottoman wrath. During his departure, he practiced a scorched earth policy, leaving nothing of importance to be used by the pursuing Ottoman army. When the Ottoman forces approached Tirgoviste, it was said that thousands of Romanian muslims (men, women and children) were found to have been impaled by the forces of Vlad III."
Kinda sounds like his brother sold out his own people by leading an army there the to subdue them. Hmm I heard that somewhere before oh yeah right, Bram Stokers Dracula mentioned that.
-
I actually if you would compare Mathias and Copella's version of Dracula I think the latter has a better reason for renouncing god just because they mention that his wife's soul couldn't be saved because of the suicide and all while according to Lament (the manga) Mathias's wife died of uh tuberculosis. In both cases though I think their reasoning for their human genocide is way too exaggerated to be taken seriously and only makes them look egoistic.
Mathias didn't commit genocide until much later down the road. And honestly, then it had good reason. He had mostly preoccupied himself with his immortality, continuing his research in alchemy, no real wars against humanity except he's grown to despise them, and has grown a superiority ego over the centuries. HE finnaly started his massacre's and war on humanity after his Human wife, reincarnation of the same woman who's death drover him insane in the first place was murdered, instead of simply dying from illness again. What really pissed him was that she was caring to people as a doctor and healer, and yet the called her a whitch and burned her to death on the stake... a horrible death like that for the most ignorant cowardly reasons cnvinced him humanity was worthless and an evil in it's own. So he starts the war.
Oh as for him being a strategist, yeah, Dracula shows no hint of that except in Simon's quest by cursing his body. At this point, his mind has been twisted and is no longer sane. I figure that as a factor for his illogical choices.
-
Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?
Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.
Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.
@VGuyver
Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen. :P
-
The only book Stoker ever read about Dracula was An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia and that book only mentions a "Viviode Dracula" three times, and two of them actually refer to Vlad Dracul. Stoker wrote in his notes what he thought was the most important of all this info and that was that Dracula means devil
Close Nagumo. The title Dracula means "Son of the Dragon" You could also argue that it means "son of the Devil". But that devil/Dragon relationship only exists because of the un-educated leaders of the roman catholic church. Dragons by nature are not evil as they claim. They've been around in folklore for thousands of years, long before the church itself existed. Dragons are of the serpent nature and the snake is one of the oldest symbols of creation and fertility. The Devil was created by the roman catholic hierarchy to be used as a terror-tactic to contol an illiterate and uneducated society. the church was also against the whole idea of natural practic and branded it heracy. This includes worshiping the symbol of creation and fertility; the snake/serpent i.e. the Dragon. Whom-ever has the gold makes the rules.
-X
-
Heheh I know but that was just what Stoker wrote.
-
Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?
Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.
Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.
@VGuyver
Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen. :P
Guess you missed that whole thing about a voivode i put up early, allow me to refresh your memory.
Voivode[1] is a Slavic title that originally denoted the principal commander of a military force. The word gradually came to denote the governor of a province; the territory ruled or administered by a voivode is known as a voivodeship. In English, the title is often translated as "prince", "duke", or, as in Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, "count". The Polish title is sometimes rendered in English as "palatine" or "count palatine", in charge of a palatinate. In Slavic terminology, the rank of a voivode is in some cases considered equal of that of a German Herzog.
And that whole wonderful man thing probably meant that Romania still supports Vlad as one of their greatest and most beloved Princes.
Also take into consideration that this book was written in 1897 in Ireland perhaps at that time there wasn't a lot on Vlad at said time. Plus Vlad only inspired the creation of Dracula his model was used to create a fictional character. And it does mention his past but only slightly, did Bram wish everyone to love Vlad? No he wanted his book to sale so he could become a famous author, he wanted people to love his character Dracula not the real Vlad because a lot of people probably wouldn't have liked Vlad very much because he murdered shit tons of people. Vlad was only the inspiration that would lead into a completely different character and by different I mean he drank the blood of the innocent to live, slept in a coffin, and turned into a bat. And also did your source know Bram? Is she/he a vampire too? lol seriously not buying that.
And another thing Im not seeing any facts to back up your theories. I got plenty of written down facts supporting me which whether you like it or not he wrote down occurrences of Vlad's life, mention his own brother betraying him, even used the Slavic term for prince when he couldve used the English version, even came out in the book and said "Hes Dracula". You got a bunch of "theories" with nothing substantial that has been written down as fact other then your "source" who acts like they were alive in 1897 and watched his every move and claimed he only read one book about Vlad but actions speak louder than words and he wrote down things that actually occurred in his life so guess what that means? He did some more research than what was placed in his notes meaning he must have been too lazy to take notes. Or maybe he didn't want people knowing he used Vlad III because at the time his name was so obscured no one knew who the hell he was until sometime after this novel was published. And he didnt want to lose creditability as a writer by using someone who already existed instead of creating a character from scratch like Sir Author Conan Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes.
That would be like me deciding to write a werewolf novel where Hitler is the main werewolf but instead I use the name Adolf because i dont really want people knowing I used him directly. I write down in my notes some tidbit about reading one book that mentions his name three times. So I write the book and actually put down historical occurrences that point to him being the honest to god jew hatin Hitler but not everything because I dont want people thinking I'm trying to ride his tail coats too much. Do you know what that means? It means I did a little more research thats what that means. And you are gonna seriously argue because I'm lazy and didnt place it down in my notes that Hitler isn't whom I got inspirations for the jew hatin werewolf I created for my book?
So you can harp all you want like some 911 conspiracy theorist but unfortunately me and the rest of the world disagree with you along with Bram's own written down words that pointed directly to Vlad III do too. And thats what this comes down if it brightens your world up that Vlad III isn't what inspired Bram's Dracula then by all means go for it, I'm not gonna stop ya. Have at it.
-
Mathias didn't commit genocide until much later down the road. And honestly, then it had good reason.
Good reason for slaughtering innocent people...?
-
We dunno if they were innocent... they coulda been asshole sinners their entire lives lol
-
Lumas wait...
I thought we were arguing that Bram Stoker intented the two to be the same character in his novel. I never claimed he wasn't inspired by Vlad Tepes. But inspired by a character and being actually said character are two different things in fiction.
-
Let me put it like this: if Bram Stoker really intented his Dracula to be Vlad Tepes then why is that name not mentioned even once? And his notes? Why isn't there a single hint of the horrible things he had done in this past, like his brutal ways of excution? Why does Van Helsing claim he was a "most wonderful man" during his lifetime?
Not to mention that there a condradictions that outweight the hints you brought forward. Vlad Tepes is a prince and not a Count. He is not a boyar, in fact the real Tepes liked to kill them or use them as slaves. He also isn't a descendant of Atilla the Hun. Instead he belongs to some kind off Slavish race.
Trust me if they really were supposed to be one and the same the author would have done a lot more research. That source I was talking about is proven to be the only book he read about the subject ever. He is known for directly copying trivial information from sources he used for his book and tie them to completely unrelated things sometimes. He just wanted to have an appealing backstory for his vampire character and therefore he just goes with the person he got the name Dracula from. There is a difference between actually being the same character or being loosely based on one.
@VGuyver
Yeah I understand that but wouldn't it have been logical if he just killed the ones who were responsible? Or at most just the entire village where Lisa lived. Dracula just comes off as an overreacting drama queen. :P
Your buddy has got it right. Bram's "Dracul" and Vlad are closer than you think. The History Channel is ridden with interesting trinkets of info.
-
... Mathias turned himself in defiance of God because God killed Elisabetha. Understandable, BUT he also orchestrated the death of his best friend's fiance AND he had the gall to attempt to sway Leon to his side. Dude was obviously a prick right from the start but he was suave enough that he could hide it from others.
Furthermore, the back-story ties in pretty damn well with SotN AND AoS/DoS. Elisabetha was obviously based off of Lisa from SotN, implying that either Dracula has unwavering taste or that Lisa was Elisabetha's reincarnation. This can be taken another step when you factor Mina into account. Elisabetha->Lisa->Mina. And each time one of them died (or in Mina's case, appeared to die) Mathias/Dracula/Soma went completely batshit-psycho.
With Elisabetha, he renounced his humanity and made a mortal enemy out of his best friend.
With Lisa, he started killing (impaling, Vlad the Impaler) people indiscriminately. This is supported by the time-line particularly as Vlad was born in the 1430's and Trevor and Co fought him in the 1470's. Vlad Tepes ruled mainly from... 1456 to 1462 (had to look it up) and he died in 1476. It is obvious that whoever came up with the story of SotN, and even CoD, thought about this.
With Mina, he lost control and even without the memories of his past life, he let the darkness consume him and struck out against his former friends (in the bad ending, anyway).
The character is nothing if not consistent.
Another thing I liked about the Mathias background was that it explained how the Belmonts originally became entangled in this. Mathias was Leon's friend, a brother in arms, and that makes his acts against Leon all the more despicable.
Someone like Mathias... was perfectly worthy of becoming Vlad Tepes, I think.
-
I love Mathias and the idea that Dracula was originally human. I just don't buy his being a "master tactician" according to the LoI story... Think about it. For nearly a thousand years the guy always uses the same vain strategy of kidnapping women and luring... who?... the Belmonts! Why not lure to my castle the only guys who can defeat me and always do? And he always sends out the same bosses after them. Yeah Death and Legion are cool but they fail their master every single time! I assume a true "master tactician" would have fired 'em a long time ago. Frankly I'd expect more from the so-called Lord of the Vampires.
I'm just kidding here. I love Castlevania since the very first game in the series. But I'm more pleased with the more original titles such as OoE which breaks that nonsensical cycle of Drac chasing trouble.
Ok going with your story here, you intend to fire a god? he is THE most powerful servant he could ever have, Death isn't around for just his looks or for the sake of it he actually is there because there is none better. He might not be good enough but still, and the fact that he lures the Belmonts isn't that a bad idea,(besides if you want a real tactician you should look at the Dracula from castlevania64) that way the only battle that matters becomes settled instantly, would you like to build an entire empire only to see it crumble to dust because you know the Belmonts are still around and they have a 90% chance of killing all in their path?
Oh and on a side note, we've seen Drac absorb others to gain power before. Legacy of Darkness anyone? if you look at it Mathias and Dracula from Legacy have a lot in common.
-
The real life Vlad was also a tactician of sorts as well so it should come as no surprise. But the Mathias character is nothing more then IGA trying to "remake" Castelvania and Dracula in his own image. To me, the evidence is quite clear.
-X
-
Everybody at Konami likes Mathias, even COX. Why else would he make Gabriel related to him?
-
Forced fanservice. And its a false lead you can see coming from a mile away.
-
Nagumo, where's our LoI cell phone comic you promised you'd track down for us =[
-
Meaning do you prefer Dracula before the Mathias idea or after it was implemented.
I prefer Dracula before the Mathias idea was implemented, absolutely. The original appeal that Castlevania had to me was its use of classic horror themes, and specifically of Dracula. Thing is, because Dracula is a character that is such a staple in our culture, everyone already has their own ideas of who that character is. When you make such drastic fundamental changes, basically altering the character's identity, it makes him less appealing to me. Dracula's "origin" was a story best left untold, remaining in the imaginations of the players. Adding the Mathias back-story was one of Iga's worst mistakes with the Castlevania story, in my opinion.
It doesn't help that Dracula is almost never portrayed as his traditional vampire self in Castlevania anymore; he is almost always depicted as some "Dark Lord" evil wizard, who we now know is really named Mathias. What's the point of even calling him Dracula? If the backstory, appearance, powers and motivations of the character are all Iga's vision and none of the traditional Stoker character, why not just call him "Dark Lord Mathias" and be done with it?
-
Good argument there justin312. That's exactly how it is.
-X
-
Nagumo, where's our LoI cell phone comic you promised you'd track down for us =[
The dog ate it.
-
^ I'm so sad, now... I've been wanting to read that ever since I stumbled across the wiki that talked about it.
Look... I don't see that it matters too terribly much. They stayed pretty damn true to the Castlevania Dracula's personality when creating Mathias and furthermore, his next appearance in the series took place hundreds of years later. Castlevania is hardly known for its historical accuracy (Frankenstein's monster, robots in days of old, etc) so really, who cares?
You could argue that he killed the original Vlad and took his place using magic. Problem solved.
-
Look... I don't see that it matters too terribly much. They stayed pretty damn true to the Castlevania Dracula's personality when creating Mathias and furthermore, his next appearance in the series took place hundreds of years later. Castlevania is hardly known for its historical accuracy (Frankenstein's monster, robots in days of old, etc) so really, who cares?
You could argue that he killed the original Vlad and took his place using magic. Problem solved.
This problem could also be solved by Vlad Dracula starring in his own game. LoI states that Mathias dissapears for hundreds of years before ressurfacing. I see Mathias becoming King Matthias of Hungary and Imprisoning Vlad for his six year term before being released. (Note: King Matthias did, historicaly imprison Vlad for six years.) Then once Vlad is freed and given the oppertunity to take back Romania, he takes advantage of Matthias and kills him, thus removing a well-known contradiction in the CV timeline and restoring most of the damage that IGA had done when he did the LoI Dracula back-story. Problem solved IMO. Now the other IGA games... :-X
-X
-
That would kind off destroy the entire set up for the Belmont vs. Dracula struggle. As intented by IGA I mean.
-
I liked it better way back when Castlevania III was considered the original Belmont vs Dracula struggle. Dracula raises an evil army and is on the verge of conquering the world when Trevor and his companions defeat him. Before perishing, Dracula places a curse on the Belmont bloodline, so that Dracula will rise every 100 years as long as Belmont descendants live. The Belmonts are now burdened with stopping Dracula every hundred years in an eternal struggle of good vs evil, because their cursed bloodline is the key to his resurrection, but also gives them the power to stop him.
I don't know, to me that setup is more simple and at the same time carries more weight than something as petty as one man's grudge over a dead wife.
-
I like the idea of Mathias, its gives more purpose to why the Belmonts go to kill Dracula all the time. I like to think that maybe mathias gets all sorts of power after LoI and he lives out the rest of his life gaining strength, then gets old and dies. Then maybe he goes to Hell and defeats the devil or whatever, and that's how he comes back as Dracula. I don't think Mathias is just walking around for hundreds of years and decides to change his name. There has to be something more to it. Maybe Vlad Tepes is the reincarnation of Mathias like Soma is to Dracula
-
But Dracula never cursed their bloodline in CVIII. And the Belmonts were apparently already special enough to be feared by CVIII's time. It makes sense to me that there would be another story before that. I feel like the whole set up for LoI gave a great reason for the Belmonts to go after Dracula, considering that Leon played a crucial role in creating Dracula by defeating Walter and that Sara was sacrificed to form the Vampire Killer gives a lot more meaning to it as a heirloom.
The idea of Matthias dying before CVIII can't happen though because Trevor was declared the first to kill Dracula.
-
But Dracula never cursed their bloodline in CVIII.
Well, the title of the game was "Dracula's Curse" after all. And since we were all kind of just making up stories to justify various plot points, I figured I would throw my own out there. I know Iga later created his own explanation for what "Dracula's curse" was referring to in Curse of Darkness, but I wasn't a big fan of that story direction, either.
-
Yeah, but it was just a title. A title by the localization team at that. It really had no significance to the story at all. At the very least, it inspired the curse in Curse of Darkness. Curse of Darkness was basically useless story-wise anyway, but it was probably just to introduce Saint Germain and Saint Germain is great.
-
I understand it was just a title. I guess my point was that, once upon a time long ago, Castlevania III represented the "origin" of the eternal grudge match between Dracula and the Belmonts. I know that has long since been changed, first with Legends and then Lament, so that now CVIII just represents one more link in the Belmont vs Dracula chain (and Trevor's contributions have become pretty minor, since his victory in CVIII only held Dracula at bay for three years and it was ultimately Hector who put Drac down for the next century while Trevor sat on the bench, per CoD). I would have preferred that they just left it the way it was. Dracula and his evil army taking over Europe, he appears to be unstoppable, but then Trevor and his companions save the day and Dracula vows eternal revenge by rising every 100 years (kinda like a "Curse", no?). If they wanted to do a prequel game that expands on the Belmont's "long history of fighting evil", but had the Belmont's fighting some other evil villain and left Dracula out of the picture, that would have been fine by me. I just felt that the "epic Dracula vs Belmont origin" game was unnecessary, since we already had an epic Dracula vs Belmont origin with CVIII.