Topic: Reconciling Mathias with Vlad III

[Kaneda]

Has anyone brought up reincarnation as a possible resolution for this discrepancy? I searched the forums for the topic but didn't find anything that caught my attention, that I thought I'd start a thread.

Malus was Dracula reborn as a boy and then restored to his vampiric form. What if Vlad was Mathias reborn as well? Even taking CV64's canon status into the equation, the concept could still remain in place.

[X]

What if Vlad was Mathias reborn as well? Even taking CV64's canon status into the equation, the concept could still remain in place.

This would have been more acceptable in my mind rather then seeing Vlad III shoved aside in favor of the stereo-typical Japanese anime villain. And since Mathias and Vlad have two totally different attitudes it would make far more sense in that regard. Sadly it never happened. And on a different note I especially did not like to hear that Death was relegated to a Shinigami rather then remaining the Greece-European Grim Reaper as he was supposed to be. I could go on a rant about this but that's not this topic.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

The easiest assumption I can make is that Mathias took up residence in Wallachia later -- he probably wasn't settling down until his power was much greater and he became less easily assailable.

Once he was there, it would be easy enough for a reclusive only-seen-by-night noble to be Vlad II Dracul AND Vlad III Dracula by passing himself off as his own son (Lex Luthor did something similar in the Superman comics of the 1990's). All it would take are a few slight adjustments to how he presented himself to how he was as Vlad II, and nobody would be the wiser -- with few people who had gotten a good look at their leader other than in portraits, and no real court to speak of, who would be around to tell people that Vlad 2 and 3 were the same person? And anyone who figured it out would surely be an outlier, on the margins, as everyone else would justify all doubt in their own heads as Vlad III Dracula simply being "the spitting image of his father".

It's worth noting that Trevor's slaying of Dracula in Castlevania III coincides with the date of the real life death of Vlad III Dracula, so I'll use that to support my supposition here.

[sadae]

I have to agree with The Bloody Scholar. It seems very likely Mathias settled in Wallachia and simply disguised himself as Vlad. Although the "Malus" theory seems possible, canonically speaking, Mathias had not been killed until Trevor showed up. This means he most likely had his original body and had been building up power for centuries, which could have made very easy for him to change his appearance, very much like Alucard did when he disguised himself as "Arikado". Besides, I think the Curse of Darkness manga (according to the wiki) says Dracula had defended that land before Lisa's death, which resulted in his crusade to destroy humanity (something Mathias didn't do before I think; his only concern was his revenge against God).

[zangetsu468]

I think Mathias just disguised himself as Vlad III when the real Vlad III was dead. This would ensure with ease his control of an army, fear and reverence of the people and being feared by his enemies to no end with all the crazy shit Vlad III had done.
Obviously Lisa had died prior to CVIII which would make sense as to why he would do this, choosing to wage war on humanity in addition to the aforementioned cursing of God.

Vampires also shape shift or appear differently at will, if you can turn into a wolf, bat, mist and change your appearance you can look like someone else.

I also don't buy the Malus theory, the IGA timeline says every slain Vampire added to Mathias' power and he was a fucking beast by CVIII, no way did he previously die.

[chainsawmidget]

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.)

[theplottwist]

I stand by my opinion that Vlad III never existed on the Castlevania's universe, and is likely* a character fabricated by the Church to close the hole that a vampire-demon lord left on history.

The evidence: Dracula's official full name is "Dracula Vlad Tepes" and we know very well that "Tepes" wasn't Vlad III's name nor is the word an actual, real-world name.

One may argue that he could've changed names to wage war on mankind and was simply "Vlad III" before, but this is not true. Alucard's true name is "Adrian Fahreinheit Tepes" and this name was obviously given to him before the war started, which goes to show that Dracula wore the name "Tepes" WAY before the war after all. So, if he was "Tepes" he couldn't be "Vlad III" as Vlad III wasn't called "Tepes" until well after his death (almost 100 years later). And again, the addition of "Tepes" wasn't as a name, but as an adjective. Vlad the Impaler was dubbed "the Impaler" as much as Alexander the Great was dubbed "the Great".

* - "Likely" because the "Vlad III" personality itself is never once uttered anywhere in the game for me to make this assumption. I base it solely on the fact that some geopolitical events depend on the existence of a "Vlad III character" so history is not broken (the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point).

So, I think trying to reconcile both doesn't work unless we break something. Assuming that "Vlad III" is a character invented to manipulate history to hide Dracula's existence (ensuring that things end up playing out how they did on our world) is a much more elegant solution than trying to fit the real Vlad III in there somewhere with Mathias.

[Belmontoya]

I think what some may call evidence for one theory, or evidence for another, are simply mistakes made by konami. They didn't have a clear vision of how they wanted to handle Dracula. They changed concepts for him mid-cannon, and basically tarnished the authenticity of the character. Then LOS took it to a whole other level of botching it.

I think the treatment of Dracula is the biggest flaw in CV.

For anyone who agrees with me and thinks that Dracula should be portrayed as Vlad the Impaler. After Lecarde Chronicles 2, Mig and I will be creating a CV-inspired game called Wallachia. The game will portray Dracula as I believe he should be. As a merciless, vengeful ruler, who fights his own battles using guerrilla tactics, night combat, scorched earth, unspeakable torture,  ect, ect.

This will be our first salable game.

This is not a Dracula who would wait patiently in a throne room for an assassin to come to him. This is a Dracula who would do anything it takes to win. This is who he was, and it made him into a real life monster and a legend at the same time.

He wasn't a vampire. But he certainly was a monster.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I stand by my opinion that Vlad III never existed on the Castlevania's universe, and is likely* a character fabricated by the Church to close the hole that a vampire-demon lord left on history.

The evidence: Dracula's official full name is "Dracula Vlad Tepes" and we know very well that "Tepes" wasn't Vlad III's name nor is the word an actual, real-world name.

One may argue that he could've changed names to wage war on mankind and was simply "Vlad III" before, but this is not true. Alucard's true name is "Adrian Fahreinheit Tepes" and this name was obviously given to him before the war started, which goes to show that Dracula wore the name "Tepes" WAY before the war after all. So, if he was "Tepes" he couldn't be "Vlad III" as Vlad III wasn't called "Tepes" until well after his death (almost 100 years later). And again, the addition of "Tepes" wasn't as a name, but as an adjective. Vlad the Impaler was dubbed "the Impaler" as much as Alexander the Great was dubbed "the Great".

* - "Likely" because the "Vlad III" personality itself is never once uttered anywhere in the game for me to make this assumption. I base it solely on the fact that some geopolitical events depend on the existence of a "Vlad III character" so history is not broken (the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point).

So, I think trying to reconcile both doesn't work unless we break something. Assuming that "Vlad III" is a character invented to manipulate history to hide Dracula's existence (ensuring that things end up playing out how they did on our world) is a much more elegant solution than trying to fit the real Vlad III in there somewhere with Mathias.

All good points, but I need to quibble with history here.

the very existence of a place named "Romania" itself depends on a "Vlad III" existing at some point

No it doesn't. Vlad the Impaler predates the nation of Romania by centuries. In his time, it was all Hungary. Romania is a modern nation that didn't even exist until the 1880's -- in 1859, Wallachia united with Moldavia to form the United Principalities, which adopted the name Romania in 1866 and officially became the Kingdom of Romania in 1881. Later, in 1918, Transylvania was ceded by the Treaty of Trianon from Hungary to the Kingdom of Romania, forming the modern Romanian state. Dracula had literally no part in forming Romania.

On a side note:

Wallachia existed in Vlad's time, but the real world Dracula would have never been a Count either -- that was something Stoker made up. He might as well have called Dracula an "earl" or a "baron". The real world Vlad was a straight up prince, being descended from a royal family ("Count" being a noble title, not a royal one). Furthermore, his only known wife, Ilona Szilágyi (try pronouncing that five times fast) WAS a countess by inheritance, but Vlad's title as Prince of Wallachia would have superseded that. She was also Mathias Corvinus' cousin, and this created even stronger royal ties for Vlad's family. Fortunately, all this transpired AFTER Mathias and Vlad reconciled.

In essence, while Konami BEGAN with a Dracula that was in some way inspired both by film and by history, Iga's Dracula was just as made up as Stoker's was, if not more so. He exists only as a good story.

And Gabriel Belmont is notable for being a rehash of that exact same story that just makes him a composite of both Mathias and Leon to seem original and force a plot twist at the end of the first game.

[zangetsu468]

No it doesn't. Vlad the Impaler predates the nation of Romania by centuries. In his time, it was all Hungary. Romania is a modern nation that didn't even exist until the 1880's

Which makes sense as the real figure, Matthias Corvinus was once King of Hungary.

[theplottwist]

BAM eat some history.

See, I was not talking about "Romania" in the sense that the "place be baptized as Romania." I'm very aware that "Romania" was something that started in the 1880s. I was talking about the historic weight of Vlad III and his battle with a multitude of strangers trying to take Wallachia from him, and how does that impact the existence of the place called "Romania" itself in the future.

If his lands were taken or his lineage never existed (a lineage that extends after him, btw), it's a very likely possibility that Romania would never be formed in the future.

Vlad III was not some unknown dude with no political influence. Erasing him from history starts a chain of events that affects the geopolitical scenario to the point of, again, it possibly never even existing as we know it. Butterfly effect.

Wallachia existed in Vlad's time, but the real world Dracula would have never been a Count either -- that was something Stoker made up

Bram Stoker never says Vlad III was a Count in his book. He doesn't even directly tell you Dracula is Vlad III. The "Dracula" persona created by the vampire is a Count. As in "The dude living in a castle in the 1890s wanting to buy estate is a Count" and not as "the dude who ruled Wallachia is a Count".

Castlevania is the media saying Dracula was a Count in the 1400s (which of course he wasn't), not Bram Stoker. Castlevania's developers got that bit wrong.

[Inccubus]

See, I was not talking about "Romania" in the sense that the "place be baptized as Romania." I'm very aware that "Romania" was something that started in the 1880s. I was talking about the historic weight of Vlad III and his battle with a multitude of strangers trying to take Wallachia from him, and how does that impact the existence of the place called "Romania" itself in the future.

If his lands were taken or his lineage never existed (a lineage that extends after him, btw), it's a very likely possibility that Romania would never be formed in the future.

Vlad III was not some unknown dude with no political influence. Erasing him from history starts a chain of events that affects the geopolitical scenario to the point of, again, it possibly never even existing as we know it. Butterfly effect.

I have to disagree as well. It's easy to say that Vlad III was so important that erasing him from history would mean that Romania never exists as it does in reality. However, from a narrative point of view it is just as easy to say that there was no real person named Vlad III and the church fabricated this fiction in order to cover up the existence of the Dark Lord Dracula. As a work of fiction it is easy to state that aside from the true nature of Vlad III, the rest of history played out basically the same as in reality. At the very least AoS confirms that Dracula's castle is commonly known to be in Europe.

[zangetsu468]

Plottwist is correct in saying that the Dracula novel never states the character in the past tense was Vlad III, at least not imo.

This is the issue, CV was influenced by Stoker's work to the point where it included the novel as part of the official canon. The fact Vlad III's death coincides with Trevor beating Dracula can't be ignored if you ask me, the date is just too significant that anyone can say it's coincidental. Originally he was probably supposed to be Vlad, following the original (pseudo?-)historical mythos of Dracula where Vlad's remains couldn't be found in his tomb (or that they excavated his tomb and found animal bones; whichever theory one subscribes to) so that his enemies thought him to be resurrected as a Vampire.

Along came Mathias (staring Ben Stiller as Mathias, Jennifer Aniston as Rinaldo, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Elisabetha :p ) and the fabric of CV's history was altered.
We know Mathias grew stronger with every Vampire slain between LOI-CVIII adds to Mathias/ Dracula's power and we know that he is fought and defeated in CVIII, not Vlad III.
Therefore it's 2 scenario's:
- Vlad III didn't exist in CV's history, hence manifesting a slightly different series of events, or
- Vlad III did exist in CV's history with the least amount of pissing about ie
Mathias assumed his throne at some stage (either before or upon his death?) which gave him access to waging war on humanity post-LD (Lisa's Death). That war he wished reached it's climax in CVIII.
Personally I prefer the latter because it incorporates the Mythos of the Vampire Dracula as we know it while explaining where Mathias got his means (including his followers) for waging war etc.

[Belmontoya]

Right. Stoker must have been talking about another called Dracula who fought against the Turks and was betrayed by his brother.

He didn't have a lot of history at his disposal. But his intent was clear.

It doesn't matter that at the start of writing the story he didn't have the vampire as Dracula. The finished novel makes it clear as day.

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

Where is the discrepancy?

[zangetsu468]

Right. Stoker must have been talking about another called Dracula who fought against the Turks and was betrayed by his brother.

There were 3 who attended my primary school.