Topic: Reconciling Mathias with Vlad III

[X]

Bram Stoker very much based Dracula off of Vlad III. And yes there is a line in the novel that points to Dracula being Vlad III.

"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." - Van Helsing

Here's an idea.  So Mathias does his thing, becomes a naughty vampire god.  While going about trying to make a bad world filled with evil, he eventually resides in Transylvania and has his history with the (still human) Vlad the Impaler.

Vlad eventually has his epic quest where he goes after Mathias.  Personally, I like the idea of Vlad the Impaler and the Belmont of the era being friends, but anyway, with Dracula's already (although much more limited) magical knowledge he's eventually able to defeat Mathaias and absord his power and everything he is.  So Mathias becomes part of Dracula.  At first he's just a whispering voice in the back of Vlad's head, but as time and the years go by, he becomes more integrated into Dracula's personality until they reach the point where there's no difference between them.

So there you go, now Mathias still gets to become Dracula and Vlad Dracula gets to stay Dracula (and even gets his time as the hero of Transylvania.)

I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.

That's the best headcanon I've seen on this subject yet.

It now occurs to me that we the fans are MUCH better writers for this saga than anyone Konami ever hired.

[Nagumo]

Regarding the debate about whether or not Count Dracula in Stoker's novel is really Vlad Tepes, I read a very interesting scholary article about this (written by a certain Andrew Collins from the the university of Otago) from 2011 which argues he definitely was not. To summarize his point briefly, he states the only source mentioned in Stoker's notes from he which he could have gotten his information about the historical Dracula is "An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia" (he also links all the passages from the novel that relate to historical events to information in this book) which mention two Dracula's: Vlad II and Vlad III. So, the author further goes on that the novel mentions on a few occasians two Dracula's:

1) A Dracula who ‘crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground’, whose ‘unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them’.   

2) A second Dracula who was inspired by Vlad the Impaler’s military exploits.

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! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! What good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it? 

This second Dracula is supposed to have fought in the battle of Mohács, which took place in 1526, as mentioned in the novel. 

The author argues that Stoker assumed because of the multiple uses of Dracula in the book he consulted, Dracula was actually a lineage, not simply a title. So this means that Stoker actually meant for Count Dracula to be a fictionalized relative of Vlad Tepes who also happend to have fought Turks at a later point in time, but also dabbled in black magic, alchemy, and so on.

Anyway, I just did a quick summary. I don't think this article is accessible unless you're affliated with an university, so you just have to take my word for it, I guess. 

[theplottwist]

Bram Stoker very much based Dracula off of Vlad III. And yes there is a line in the novel that points to Dracula being Vlad III.

"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." - Van Helsing

Even the most knowledgable character in the book, Van Helsing, states that he is indeed Dracula who fought the Turks.

Where is the discrepancy?

"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."

"If it be so" IF. Notice how Van Helsing says "IF" then proceeds to draw conclusions IN THE CASE his assumption is true.

Also notice how he never even utters "Vlad III" and uses "Voivode Dracula" instead. Bram Stoker thought that "Dracula" was a group of people, not a single guy, as seen here:

"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."

"The Draculas"? A "noble race" of "Draculas"? Read Nagumo's point above to understand why this is important.

That's why I said the story doesn't directly say he's Vlad III. Not even Van Helsing is completelly sure of it. The story ends with this uncertainty, because it's not important. Bram Stoker relegates the "Dracula was a voivode" fact to a ONE LINE bit where Van Helsing is not even sure of it, and according to Stoker's intent, it could have been any of "the Draculas".

I'm not saying Bram Stoker didn't base Dracula on Vlad III nor wanted Dracula to be Vlad III. He probably did, and any researcher nowadays can point this out easily. I'm saying the story never tells this to you directly, because it's not important. And also, the story never says that Vlad III was a Count.

I had a similar idea back in the day as well. However there was no unification between Mathias and Vlad III. Mathias' powers were stolen when he unwillingly lost the Crimson stone to Vlad III and became a mere mortal once more. Without that stone Mathias is now subjected to fate like any other mortal. As for Vlad III? The true Dracula now reigns supreme.

This is very good.

Imagine how plot twistey would it be if Mathias wound up tricked by Vlad III after they had allied, and ended up becoming Olrox with Dracula as his master.

This would be just like Murnau's Orlok is nothing but a knock-off of the true Dracula 

[zangetsu468]

No offense to X, but Mathias losing the CS to Vlad III sounds very fanfic.
We already have the fact that if Vlad III did exist then eventually the rational line of thought would dictate Mathias took his throne (and castle?). This is already in and of itself making assumptions, but they're based on the least amount of assumptions made when mixing historical fact, mythology and fiction.

To assume Mathias loses the CS just involves way too many assumptions for me. Iga's timeline blatantly states that Mathias' power grew with every slain vampire. We have Dracula (Mathias) at what appears to be his strongest form in CVIII as well as the second time ever that we see him have 3 forms. This coincides with the timeline talking about how powerful Mathias was becoming but also LOI and the timeline re-affirming in text that the Belmonts and Mathias wouldn't see each other for hundreds of years ie until CVIII.

In the context of cv it takes less assumptions to say that Vlad III was a vampire which is why he got off on impaling/ blood drinking and when he died Mathias not only absorbed his power but also saw an opportunity and nabbed his throne in the process. This subsequently would assist Mathias in waging his war on humanity.

[X]

No offense to X, but Mathias losing the CS to Vlad III sounds very fanfic.

Well of course it sounds fanfic, and that's because I don't own or run the franchise, therefore its fanfic. That's blatantly obvious, lol. Everything we're discussing here is, on some level or another, fanfic becuase none of use holds any rights or liberties to the CV franchise. What I wrote in my other post in brief is just my headcanon, because I don't -and never will- see Mathias as Dracula. IGA should not have touched upon that element. It never made sense to me. But because Mathias' name is so much similar to the Hungarian king of Vlad's time it makes sense to me that that is Mathias' current identity. And given the relation of Vlad III to Matthias Corvinus, it presents an ample opportunity to see how the true Dracula got such a power boost. Dracula became the vampire as we know him through the strength and power of his own Will. Something not even Mathias could have ever done as he relied on the alchemical stones to do so. Having the Crimson stone merely gave Vlad an extra boost in power. Anyways it's just my headcanon and I'll stick with it. I don't care for IGA's Mathias villain as it does not compare nor hold up to Bram Stoker's (or history's) Dracula. They're just to different beasts.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Honestly, at this point, I'm pretty close to out and out rejecting that a canon even exists and just going with one I wrote myself. The main canon is far too confusing and contradictory for my tastes, and completely ignores reality's rules of operation.

If there's anything my recent studies have indicated, it's that Iga and his team make great games but none of them should ever be asked to write a compelling and coherent story.

So I'm gonna deliberately invoke Fanon Discontinuity going forward, as my inner historian just cannot take it anymore.

*frustrated scream*

[Belmontoya]

Honestly, at this point, I'm pretty close to out and out rejecting that a canon even exists and just going with one I wrote myself. The main canon is far too confusing and contradictory for my tastes, and completely ignores reality's rules of operation.

If there's anything my recent studies have indicated, it's that Iga and his team make great games but none of them should ever be asked to write a compelling and coherent story.

So I'm gonna deliberately invoke Fanon Discontinuity going forward, as my inner historian just cannot take it anymore.

*frustrated scream*

I must agree with you sir. It's all for not.

[Dracula9]

And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell Vlad III would have had to do to outsmart Mathias, a known master tactician who by Vlad's time has 400+ years of power growth and experience added to his tactician resume, to obtain his power supply.

Vlad III might have been an excellent tactician (except where his funds were concerned), but the Targoviste raid and forest of dead guys simply doesn't hold up to the tactician who's now close to 500 years old and who got Death himself as a wingman.

Sorry, doesn't matter how interesting a theory it might be to ponder. There's way too large of a hole in the idea that a regular-ass human outsmarted a master vampire tactician with nearly 500 years of experience under his belt for me to buy into it.

Sure, one could argue that Mathias, a regular-ass human, outsmarted Walter; but I'm pretty sure Mathias would be able to see right through Vlad trying the same trick, considering Mathias knows exactly how that kind of plot works.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell...

Because nothing is an absolute reality, all is permitted.

[Dracula9]

There IS an absolute reality; Mathias is fucking Dracula. Pretending the canon doesn't exist doesn't retcon it.

The theory's instability doesn't mean Mathias in any headcanon still has to become Dracula. The theory's instability dictates that Vlad III's chances of outwitting Mathias to get the Stone are practically zero.

Oh, and I doubt losing the Stone just makes you human again. I imagine you'd just die from all those collective centuries backlogging at once.

You want to convince me? Bring some actual evidence to the table either from the canon or using a headcanon that makes logical sense, because "wah I don't like it so my headcanon is more right" doesn't cut it.

"Anything goes" is a piss-poor excuse and just tells me "I can't actually defend it with anything solid." Since I know you're not really one to make empty arguments, how's about we actually try and explain ourselves, rather than stamp our foot that the canon doesn't cater to our personal whims?

Unless I can be rationally convinced of otherwise, it's a crap--but admittedly slightly interesting to ponder for a moment or two--theory that makes no sense purely on the basis of it assuming one character somehow lost all his insanely high intellect and tactical mind and forgetting how his own trick works.

You couldn't beat a chess master with a move he invented; he'd see it coming and know exactly how to counter it, so why the hell wouldn't the same principle apply here?

[zangetsu468]

It's all for not.

Naught, I believe.

And I'm just sitting here wondering what the hell Vlad III would have had to do to outsmart Mathias, a known master tactician who by Vlad's time has 400+ years of power growth and experience added to his tactician resume, to obtain his power supply.

Vlad III might have been an excellent tactician (except where his funds were concerned), but the Targoviste raid and forest of dead guys simply doesn't hold up to the tactician who's now close to 500 years old and who got Death himself as a wingman.

Sorry, doesn't matter how interesting a theory it might be to ponder. There's way too large of a hole in the idea that a regular-ass human outsmarted a master vampire tactician with nearly 500 years of experience under his belt for me to buy into it.

Sure, one could argue that Mathias, a regular-ass human, outsmarted Walter; but I'm pretty sure Mathias would be able to see right through Vlad trying the same trick, considering Mathias knows exactly how that kind of plot works.

Yes agreed that people seem to be riding the Vla'D' Train a little too much.

So many flavours and yet people end up choosing salt..  #thebeach #original

[Lumi Kløvstad]

There IS an absolute reality; Mathias is fucking Dracula. Pretending the canon doesn't exist doesn't retcon it.

The theory's instability doesn't mean Mathias in any headcanon still has to become Dracula. The theory's instability dictates that Vlad III's chances of outwitting Mathias to get the Stone are practically zero.

Oh, and I doubt losing the Stone just makes you human again. I imagine you'd just die from all those collective centuries backlogging at once.

You want to convince me? Bring some actual evidence to the table either from the canon or using a headcanon that makes logical sense, because "wah I don't like it so my headcanon is more right" doesn't cut it.

"Anything goes" is a piss-poor excuse and just tells me "I can't actually defend it with anything solid." Since I know you're not really one to make empty arguments, how's about we actually try and explain ourselves, rather than stamp our foot that the canon doesn't cater to our personal whims?

Unless I can be rationally convinced of otherwise, it's a crap--but admittedly slightly interesting to ponder for a moment or two--theory that makes no sense purely on the basis of it assuming one character somehow lost all his insanely high intellect and tactical mind and forgetting how his own trick works.

You couldn't beat a chess master with a move he invented; he'd see it coming and know exactly how to counter it, so why the hell wouldn't the same principle apply here?

I'm tired of doing my damndest to patch an ultimately broken canon.

Seeing as it's ultimately a work of fiction, I can and will play the "there is no absolute reality" card, because these are not real events, nor will they ever resemble real events.

These are words on a digital page penned by a frankly two bit author who isn't much more skilled than E.L James. I give Lords a lot of flak (and rightly so) but that canon is much more consistent (though equally confusing).

I'm not arguing this as a debate anymore as that's never netted me anything good, just a lot of salty disagreements. Castlevania ain't Shakespeare. Hell, it's not even Twilight. The attempt to shoehorn in a timeline where one frankly wasn't needed (we were doing just fine treating each game as an isolated instance) did immense damage.

There's no. effing. point. to any of this debate.

This thread even confirms that. There's as much hard evidence that Vlad = Mathias =\= Vlad as there is for anything else we might argue. The simple fact is the writers never even cared about these details, and the more we decide we do care, the more riled up we're going to get (as seen here, in this very response), and not even over anything rewarding.

So, inasmuch as this is a made up thing that is not a historical documentation, whatever helps you enjoy it is the true thing. And there's nothing wrong with that. This is a GAME SERIES, after all, and if it's just generating salt instead of sugar, something is horribly wrong.

I've decided that attempting to argue a canon is not in my best interests to further enjoying these games. So I won't. It's not denying the holocaust or the moon landing. It's me, an individual fan, deciding to focus on the sugar instead of the salt.

Some people argue that Vlad III didn't even exist in Castlevania. Sure, cool, whatevs. Some people insist that Vlad and Mathias are seperate, others argue that they are the same.

And this being the vaguely written work of fiction with too many conflicting authors to ever give a definitive answer on the subject that it is: whatever floats your boat shall sail the seas.

Whichever version of the story helps you enjoy it the most is the best one for you.

Some people like a fairy tale where the knight rescues the princess from a dragon. Others might prefer the version where the dragon wins. A fairy tale being what it is, both sides are just as true as the other.

I'm just done dealing in all of this. It's a game.

There is no absolute reality.

Hakuna Matata.

[Dracula9]

You're arguing real-world absolutes in a fictional universe. I can't really take you seriously based solely on that.

Plot busted his ass digging through the canon to write something compelling and good for Umbra, and I like to believe I've done the same for the Megaman X project I'm working on (and I would honestly argue that the Megaman canon is as bad or worse than the CV as far as plot holes and absolute nonsense goes).

We can bust ass and wade through all the shit to come up with something that not only fits within the universe, but also patches up a lot of the holes and wraps a lot of things up nicely. So what the hell's your problem that you can't? You're intelligent, after all.

If you're pissed about trying to make sense of a crap canon, that's all fine and dandy as there are at least four people on this board who can attest to what that's like; but please don't resort to long-winded rants about how everyone sees things differently and Castlevania's not Shakespeare or Twilight (no shit, otherwise it'd be called Shakespeare and Twilight) and how you're interpreting salt from people's interpretations of the canon where none might exist.

You were in the thick of it the same as the rest of us, and you're backpedaling now. If you're salty, fine. If you've decided to focus on the things you enjoy rather than the things that annoy you, equally fine.

But do not sit there and talk all aloof like you've been above this conversation from the start. That's not how it works.

I'm not salty about the CV canon. I'm salty that people are going to outrageous lengths (like pretending canon isn't actually canon) to try and justify theories and points that otherwise would be dead on arrival, when a two-minute glance at the relevant canon will give them their answers.

Whether or not those answers are the kind they wanted is irrelevant.

The canon is the canon, and within the universe of the game series it is law. "It's just a game, bro!" doesn't mean a damn thing and is an absolutely pitiful attempt at a redirect.

Don't like certain parts of the canon? Write your own headcanon for it; by that, I don't mean things like "Vlad III obviously stole the Crimson Stone from a 500 year old vampire tactician whose centuries of knowledge and experience suddenly went away and he got tricked."

I mean things like digging your heels in and making some sugar out of the salt. You know, like plot and I and others have done in the past. It's not impossible to write a fanon or headcanon that fits the true canon and does so sensibly; it just requires a shitload of analyzing and detail-digging and work, and if you're too tired to want to do that work anymore, that's perfectly okay!

But don't give me this aloof attitude. I'm not the person you're pissed at.

I'm not really even arguing the worth of CV's canon at this point; I'm more concerned with the fact that you're both denying the canon simply because it's not to your tastes at times, and are now acting awfully self-superior because I called you on it.

It may be your right as a fan to choose what you believe and that's fine, but when it's a complete 180 to posts you made in the same thread, I will question the sudden discrepancy as I have been.

You're free to do whatever the hell you want. The sudden change in gears is where I'm currently concerned. You were going on tangents that the timeline/canon didn't follow the rules of reality, when we're dealing with a series with magic monster castles, immortal shapeshifting vampires, skeletal personifications of a natural biological process that somehow see and talk and move without organs or sinews, demons and alchemy and magic and alternate dimensions and gods and personified entropy and all this other shit that isn't even remotely realistic.

Who exactly's barking up the wrong tree here with their framework, again?

I guess the long-and-short of this would be: you can believe whatever and do whatever, but please don't act aloof or like you're above the discussion you were so vehemently a part of just a short while ago when I or someone else happens to question your motives or rationale, because it really comes off as something you're probably not really intending and because of the likelihood of miscommunication I'm finding this whole exchange grossly out of character for you.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

If the fans were in charge of writing, the quality of the games would skyrocket, almost overnight.

Why?

Fans are far more dedicated than the guys who officially handle this stuff. And while that makes for an incredibly productive fanbase that exceeds anything I've seen short of the Whovian and Brony communities, this is also the source of all the canon's shortcomings. Written as a summary meant to explain things in brief, the canon is perfectly serviceable. Maybe a little cliche'd, but it gets the job done.

However, it is when we place it under the microscope of examination, and question specific details that the whole thing starts to fracture, and it breaks apart more the closer you zoom in. This isn't any one person's fault -- Castlevania's timeline has always been rickety beyond belief. But, early games don't line up their fine print with later games.

I point out, once again, Dracula's Curse as an example as it has the clearest overlap with real history (which is useful as a reference). Set in 1476, Tralph (hah) Belmont slays Dracula. Real world Dracula died in 1476. The insinuation there is clear: that Vlad Tepes III WAS the same Dracula that we fight in all the games, and TrevorRalph was the reason Dracula *actually* died and the real world history was a Church cover story. Furthermore, you can excuse Dracula's later resurrections from not appearing in the historical record as the result of "cleaners" who scrub the evidence from history.


(Probably this guy and his minions)

It doesn't really follow history to the letter, but it makes a good story. But later games don't jibe with this telling, and furthermore, that schism goes perpetually unaddressed.

You could argue, in fact, that the topic of this very thread is the fault line upon which the whole canon rests. Press it the wrong way and watch as everything falls apart in a catastrophic pile that makes the movie San Andreas look tame. If Mathias IS Vlad, then a lot of things about Drac's personality start making sense. If he ISN'T, then, well, someone has a lot to explain now.

This to my mind is why it's never been directly addressed, merely implied one way or another to the point where no answer reliably exists. No writer wanted to be the one to "push the button", and their hesitance has created one of the largest continuity snarls ever seen in any franchise.

And here's what I'm getting at.

This snarl still exists. We're debating it now. It will continue to go unaddressed, even if the series started back up tomorrow. The same hesitance by official authors that created this problem will persist, and the status quo will remain unchanged.

There is simply no canon answer to this kind of question, and it's unlikely there ever will be.

I'll continue to argue points based on real history because that is enjoyable for me and it allows me to look at the series from a new viewpoint that wasn't considered by the authors, but I'm not trying for definitive answers anymore; I fully accept that it won't happen.

Hence, why bother worrying about these things? Go for whatever makes a better story for you.

Do what brings you joy.

Personally, with the evidence presented in Dracula's Curse as my guide, I think Mathias IS Vlad Dracula (and his father, and his father's father, etc.). Others are sure to disagree.

But hey, it's just a game, and like I said before.

Hakuna Matata.