Spoiler My views on the timeline placement of BotW/TotK.

[Moblinking5000]

So, I get that alot of people, have been readdressing the timeline debate of where BotW(and in turn, TotK) take place in the Zelda timeline since the release of TotK. I figured that as one of the most prominent theorists on this board, I should do the same.

So, here it is: before the release of TotK, I was adamant that BotW could only be on the DT. I still stand by a DT placement for BotW and TotK. We still have a Hyrule attacked many times by Ganon, according to Aonuma, the OoT sages are remembered in a non flooded Hyrule(TotK even has Sidon confirming he's a descendant of Ruto, doubling down on said connection), Creating a Champion says that Calamity Ganon is the same Ganondorf from OoT having been revived multiple times(by saying that the Ganondorf that became the Calamity was born in the same era as Nabooru). Which is weird right, since TotK Ganondorf is a different guy? Seems contradictory in some ways, no? Hell, TotK Ganon doesn't even seem to remember being Calamity Ganon...if he really did become the Calamity, he should remember.

Well, I have a way to reconcile this, but it means that people have to come with the terms that TotK Ganon is the earliest known Ganon, not OoT Ganon. This makes sense , as nothing in OoT says that its Ganondorf is the first Gerudo male ever named Ganondorf. And it also makes sense since the backstory of TotK takes place during Hyrule's founding. I know some people argue that it's a REfounding, but if that were the case, I would've felt like we would've been made more aware of it. We see some strong evidence supporting this being the founding of Old Hyrule, not some DT New Hyrule; there's a smoke ring around Death Mountain like in OoT that doesn't exist in BotW or the present day of TotK, meaning the developers had to have purposely added this to tell us something. It also seemed to be more heavily forested in like in earlier games like FS and OoT. We also have a Koume and Kotake that are very young. And we also know ingame from Zelda that the Zonai were around during the time of ''earliest legend'' despite the BotW/TotK era having legends about the Era of the Hero of Time.

So, how can OoT Ganon be born and running around while TotK Ganon is sealed away? Well, remember that Ganon is known for having offshoots of his spirit escape seals and become their own unique people/creatures/creations. Some examples include in ALttP, when part of his spirit escaped the Sacred Realm creating the dark priest Agahnim, or in BotW, how Calamity Ganon's spirit fragments created the Blight Ganons, etc. It's not hard to imagine, based on precedent that can be observed in the games, that something similar happened here. Over the generations, some part of TotK Ganondorf's spirit and malice bypassed the seal and gave birth to another Gerudo child, who is the Ganondorf that we see in OoT, and most games in the series aside from TotK and FSA. Despite effectively partly being a reincarnation of TotK Ganondorf, he doesn't have his memories or the same exact personality traits(hence why I consider TotK Ganon and OoT Ganon different people, like how FSA Ganon is a seperate person from OoT Ganon despite being a reincarnation of OoT Ganon). Anyway, TotK Ganondorf doesn't escape until TotK; people might question how he didn't awaken in OoT when there was a hole beneath where HC used to be(in fact, it even looks similar to the malice/miasma holes in TotK...hmm...), but it's probable that it didn't go deep enough; remember that Calamity Ganon attacked multiple times prior to BotW, and he didn't set TotK Ganon free regardless.

So as we know, OoT Ganon keeps getting defeated over and over on the DT and being revived again and again, and he becomes a mindless beast, losing his humanity both physically and mentally, and eventually, OoT Ganon becomes Calamity Ganon, only thing left of him being his vengeful spirit made of malice. And OoT Ganon's spirit and malice is literally a part of TotK Ganon's spirit and malice, so Calamity Ganon stays stuck/sealed to Hyrule Castle for the most part as everything about him at this point literally belongs to TotK Ganon far beneath said castle, establishing a connection between the two. After BotW ends and OoT/Calamity Ganon faces his latest sealing courtesy of Zelda, TotK Ganondorf awakens.

TL;DR version. OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are seperate Demon Kings, with TotK Ganon being the first, and OoT (DT) Ganon=BotW/Calamity Ganon.

The only thing that may not seem to gel that well with this is the fact that Impa says that the Calamity is the ancient Demon King revived as a vengeful spirit(I'm paraphrasing the JP). Now, technically speaking, both OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are both Demon Kings, but if someone were playing TotK as their first Zelda game, they would naturally assume that this is the same Demon King from the rest of the game, and not some other Demon King, yes? Well, true, but there's precedent supporting the fact that Nintendo themselves doesn't hold true to this standard in regards to the wider series lore. For example, in TP, people mention an ancient hero, and the Hero's Shade talks about how he accepted life as the hero. People who have never played another Zelda game and have no clue about the series lore would naturally assume that the HS is the same hero mentioned by people in TP, right, and it would make logical sense, too. Well, yes, but they would be wrong, as the HS is the Hero of Time, who is forgotten on the Child Timeline, meaning that the hero mentioned is some other hero who we may not have seen yet. In FSA, the protagonist is named Link, and the backstory says that Link(who we know as the one from FS) was the hero who sealed Vaati previously. The game doesn't go too far out of its way to say that the Link you play as is a new hero to the point where prior to HH, alot of people, myself included, believed them to be the same hero. And that goes for both series fans and newcomers, in that case. So, using that same principle, we can not confirm if Impa is talking about the Demon King from this game, or another Demon King, especially when the Calamity isn't super relevant in TotK compared to BotW.

The only real potential problem with a DT placement is the Imprisoning War thing, but this can be easily explained one of two ways:

1) There were two Imprisoning Wars(one Post-SS, one Pre-ALttP) like how we have two World Wars in real life

2) Parts of the Imprisoning War from the ALttP backstory legend(including the name) were smudged together with the Zonai War(this concept is not new to the series; see the backstory of ALBW, which ''smudged'' together different events together as one over time)

This reconciles all the information we know about the placement of BotW/TotK then and now, and it does so in a manner that doesn't ignore any previous or current developer intent.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

I have been saying the majority of this for a while now, on other platforms. I personally go as far as to say that the TotK past is actually pre-SS. This, of course, places TotK Ganondorf before Demise. I suggest that he actually draws power from Demise. Gaining the Secret Stone strengthened the connection. Then, after Ganondorf was sealed, it led to the surfacing of Demise.

(I recently posted a theory to that end, that I tried to keep spoiler free. I would enjoy your thoughts on it.)

I am between the ideas of there being two Imprisoning Wars, and the smudging of facts over the ages. The narrative side of me would love it if there was evidence for the Imprisoning War to be fought by time travelers, allowing for one war to be fought in multiple time frames. But, that would need more evidence than we have.

 

[Moblinking5000]

Pre-SS doesn't work; Hyrule Kingdom isn't established until the end of the Era of Chaos and the beginning of the Era of Prosperity, which is after SS.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

We don't actually have a name for the kingdom from before SS; just a description of "Hylia's Realm." I have come across many who argue that there was no one government, and it was just some tribes, but the structures are far too large, and specialized. Some large government was established, before SS. I know that in of itself does not mean that Rauru's Hyrule has to be Pre-SS, yet it does leave a useful spot to fill.

Then we have the Master sword. Rauru, neither anyone else, had any concept of the Master Sword, asside from what Zelda had told them. Rauru was interested in pulling out all stops. If the sword existed in the past, he would have at least tried to make use of it, or find someone who could. Not even a simple comment about the blade, or hero for that matter, Zelda has told them so much about being like a legend/story they have herd before. The concept was completely novel to them.

Plus, there is the similar architecture, I have pointed out in my other thread, linking the Zonai architecture, art style, and technology to to pre-SS.

There is also the cloud barrier, which may or may not be a consideration depending on how much of a barrier it is. Things can fall down, and Link has been blasted up, by the help of specific technology. Still, it was designed to protect what was placed in the sky, and may have made raising the lands after SS, through the cloud barrier more difficult. But, regardless how strong the barrier is/was, if the land lifting from Zelda's plan happened first, Hylia could have joined Skyloft later, and placed the barrier then.

Edit: Yes. I am proposing that while the kingdom we have known, as Hyrule, was founded after SS, it was basically a re-founding of the original.

 

[GZ Zelda]

So, here it is: before the release of TotK, I was adamant that BotW could only be on the DT. I still stand by a DT placement for BotW and TotK. We still have a Hyrule attacked many times by Ganon, according to Aonuma, the OoT sages are remembered in a non flooded Hyrule(TotK even has Sidon confirming he's a descendant of Ruto, doubling down on said connection), Creating a Champion says that Calamity Ganon is the same Ganondorf from OoT having been revived multiple times(by saying that the Ganondorf that became the Calamity was born in the same era as Nabooru). Which is weird right, since TotK Ganondorf is a different guy? Seems contradictory in some ways, no? Hell, TotK Ganon doesn't even seem to remember being Calamity Ganon...if he really did become the Calamity, he should remember.

There's a tablet that says Ruto helped save Hyrule with the princess and the hero of legend. "It is said that she was aided by the princess of Hyrule and the hero of legend, and together they saved Hyrule." I just have to interpret this at face value and say that the sages succeeded in saving Hyrule with Link during the OoT events of TotK's timeline. I agreed with you before that BotW was most likely Downfall (although the Rito and the Koroks always gave me pause), but the Hero of Time saving Hyrule with Ruto doesn't line up with what we know of the Imprisoning War.

Well, I have a way to reconcile this, but it means that people have to come with the terms that TotK Ganon is the earliest known Ganon, not OoT Ganon. This makes sense , as nothing in OoT says that its Ganondorf is the first Gerudo male ever named Ganondorf. And it also makes sense since the backstory of TotK takes place during Hyrule's founding. I know some people argue that it's a REfounding, but if that were the case, I would've felt like we would've been made more aware of it. We see some strong evidence supporting this being the founding of Old Hyrule, not some DT New Hyrule; there's a smoke ring around Death Mountain like in OoT that doesn't exist in BotW or the present day of TotK, meaning the developers had to have purposely added this to tell us something. It also seemed to be more heavily forested in like in earlier games like FS and OoT. We also have a Koume and Kotake that are very young. And we also know ingame from Zelda that the Zonai were around during the time of ''earliest legend'' despite the BotW/TotK era having legends about the Era of the Hero of Time.

I agree that if BotW/TotK are DT, TotK Ganondorf is the first Ganondorf.

So, how can OoT Ganon be born and running around while TotK Ganon is sealed away? Well, remember that Ganon is known for having offshoots of his spirit escape seals and become their own unique people/creatures/creations. Some examples include in ALttP, when part of his spirit escaped the Sacred Realm creating the dark priest Agahnim, or in BotW, how Calamity Ganon's spirit fragments created the Blight Ganons, etc. It's not hard to imagine, based on precedent that can be observed in the games, that something similar happened here. Over the generations, some part of TotK Ganondorf's spirit and malice bypassed the seal and gave birth to another Gerudo child, who is the Ganondorf that we see in OoT, and most games in the series aside from TotK and FSA. Despite effectively partly being a reincarnation of TotK Ganondorf, he doesn't have his memories or the same exact personality traits(hence why I consider TotK Ganon and OoT Ganon different people, like how FSA Ganon is a seperate person from OoT Ganon despite being a reincarnation of OoT Ganon). Anyway, TotK Ganondorf doesn't escape until TotK; people might question how he didn't awaken in OoT when there was a hole beneath where HC used to be(in fact, it even looks similar to the malice/miasma holes in TotK...hmm...), but it's probable that it didn't go deep enough; remember that Calamity Ganon attacked multiple times prior to BotW, and he didn't set TotK Ganon free regardless.

This is how I theorize Ganondorf got his body back in TP. It may be that the "Calamity" was literally full-fledged Ganondorf's (FSA, OoT, Z1) before over time becoming more and more mindless (OoT to ALttP to Oracle games to the husk in ALBW to the monster in BotW).

So as we know, OoT Ganon keeps getting defeated over and over on the DT and being revived again and again, and he becomes a mindless beast, losing his humanity both physically and mentally, and eventually, OoT Ganon becomes Calamity Ganon, only thing left of him being his vengeful spirit made of malice. And OoT Ganon's spirit and malice is literally a part of TotK Ganon's spirit and malice, so Calamity Ganon stays stuck/sealed to Hyrule Castle for the most part as everything about him at this point literally belongs to TotK Ganon far beneath said castle, establishing a connection between the two. After BotW ends and OoT/Calamity Ganon faces his latest sealing courtesy of Zelda, TotK Ganondorf awakens.

You said what I said, I should have read ahead.

TL;DR version. OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are seperate Demon Kings, with TotK Ganon being the first, and OoT (DT) Ganon=BotW/Calamity Ganon.

I don't get this piece. If OoT Ganondorf is TotK-Ganondorf malice making a Gerudo man, then BotW Ganon is also TotK Malice making a pig beast, right? They all go back to TotK Ganondorf who was the first incarnation of Demise's curse? BotW Ganon, OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf are different guys, but BotW comes from OoT who comes from TotK, no? Or in the sense that it it OoT Ganondorf (a malice clump of TotK Ganondorf) who is the one that keeps coming back, that the malice-pig Dark Beast Ganon is the same malice clump as OoT Ganondorf? That makes more sense.

For example, in TP, people mention an ancient hero, and the Hero's Shade talks about how he accepted life as the hero. People who have never played another Zelda game and have no clue about the series lore would naturally assume that the HS is the same hero mentioned by people in TP, right, and it would make logical sense, too. Well, yes, but they would be wrong, as the HS is the Hero of Time, who is forgotten on the Child Timeline, meaning that the hero mentioned is some other hero who we may not have seen yet

This is why the CT doesn't make any sense: what other hero was there if not the one from OoT, who "accepted the life of a hero?" This is a separate convo, but I agree with the larger point that they want to keep heroes and Demon Kings concise.

So, using that same principle, we can not confirm if Impa is talking about the Demon King from this game, or another Demon King, especially when the Calamity isn't super relevant in TotK compared to BotW.

They don't know the mechanics of this, but the Calamity comes from OoT Ganondorf who comes from TotK Ganondorf who comes from Demise who is the Hylia or the Hero's Spirit to power and evil. It's all the same source, which might be what Impa is referring to.

The only real potential problem with a DT placement is the Imprisoning War thing, but this can be easily explained one of two ways:

1) There were two Imprisoning Wars(one Post-SS, one Pre-ALttP) like how we have two World Wars in real life

2) Parts of the Imprisoning War from the ALttP backstory legend(including the name) were smudged together with the Zonai War(this concept is not new to the series; see the backstory of ALBW, which ''smudged'' together different events together as one over time)

I guess this makes sense, but metatextually, it's weird that they would do this. Like, why would they call it the Imprisoning War if they don't know about, y'know, the Imprisoning part?

This reconciles all the information we know about the placement of BotW/TotK then and now, and it does so in a manner that doesn't ignore any previous or current developer intent.

I mean OoT developers intended for OoT Ganondorf to be the origin of Ganondorf, I think?

I think this works if it's in the DT: that TotK Ganondorf was first, that OoT Ganondorf is a malice clump and is the one who was resurrecting during the Calamities, that the Imprisoning War label got smudged.

I just think it has to be in the AT, post-flood, refounding, reset. Ritos and Koroks exist, Ruto helped the hero save Hyrule, the Zonai were the "gods" that granted the flood maybe, the Lightroots are part of the Deku Tree's plan, Rock Salt, you know the rest. I know AT-theorists get hung up on this tiny Wind Waker side quest and hinge their entire timeline-continuation theories on it, but that quest just has no pay-off and the Deku Tree was wrong and the future of the ancient Hyrulean bloodline is Malladus and trainworld? And the founding of Hyrule Kingdom was just a complete mystery to everyone for 20,000 years or so? It seems like they are obviously trying to retcon some stuff with TotK and I think we should give them full permission to do it way way way after Spirit Tracks.

 

[Moblinking5000]

There's a tablet that says Ruto helped save Hyrule with the princess and the hero of legend. "It is said that she was aided by the princess of Hyrule and the hero of legend, and together they saved Hyrule." I just have to interpret this at face value and say that the sages succeeded in saving Hyrule with Link during the OoT events of TotK's timeline. I agreed with you before that BotW was most likely Downfall (although the Rito and the Koroks always gave me pause), but the Hero of Time saving Hyrule with Ruto doesn't line up with what we know of the Imprisoning War.

The Hero of Time still played a part in saving Hyrule, he just ended up dying in the process.

This is how I theorize Ganondorf got his body back in TP. It may be that the "Calamity" was literally full-fledged Ganondorf's (FSA, OoT, Z1) before over time becoming more and more mindless (OoT to ALttP to Oracle games to the husk in ALBW to the monster in BotW).

OoT and Zelda 1 Ganon are one in the same; OoT Ganon keeps getting defeated and/or killed and unsealed/ressurected over and over again on the DT.

before over time becoming more and more mindless (OoT to ALttP to Oracle games to the husk in ALBW to the monster in BotW).

Add Zelda 1 between ALBW and and BotW and you have OoT Ganon's progression on the DT.

Or in the sense that it it OoT Ganondorf (a malice clump of TotK Ganondorf) who is the one that keeps coming back, that the malice-pig Dark Beast Ganon is the same malice clump as OoT Ganondorf? That makes more sense.

That's what I'm trying to say, more or less; OoT Ganondorf was another Gerudo child born out of a part of TotK Ganondorf's malice and/or spirit, but is a different guy like how FSA and OoT Ganon are different people despite having the same soul. If you want me to explain it a different way, let me and know and I'll try.

This is why the CT doesn't make any sense: what other hero was there if not the one from OoT, who "accepted the life of a hero?" This is a separate convo, but I agree with the larger point that they want to keep heroes and Demon Kings concise.

The Hero's Shade/Hero of Time accepted the life of the hero, but on the AT. Both Historia and the Japanese intro of Majora's Mask make it clear that his legend was not remembered on the CT. Therefore, since his legend was not remembered, the ''ancient hero'' mentioned by the people must, by necessity, be a different offscreen hero, either between OoT and TP, or before OoT.

I guess this makes sense, but metatextually, it's weird that they would do this. Like, why would they call it the Imprisoning War if they don't know about, y'know, the Imprisoning part?

An incarnation of Ganon is imprisoned in both wars, yes?

I mean OoT developers intended for OoT Ganondorf to be the origin of Ganondorf, I think?

The origin of the most commonly appearing Ganon throughout the series, yes, but that doesn't mean there are no new Ganondorfs; even before TotK, FSA introduced a new Ganon.

Ritos and Koroks exist,

BotW/TotK Rito are different from TWW Rito from culture to biology, and Koroks are just transformed Kokiri, with the Kokiri existing before the split.

Ruto helped the hero save Hyrule,

She does that on the DT, too.

the Lightroots are part of the Deku Tree's plan,

Is there ingame proof of this, are you using a theory to prove another a theory?

I know AT-theorists get hung up on this tiny Wind Waker side quest and hinge their entire timeline-continuation theories on it, but that quest just has no pay-off and the Deku Tree was wrong and the future of the ancient Hyrulean bloodline is Malladus and trainworld? And the founding of Hyrule Kingdom was just a complete mystery to everyone for 20,000 years or so?

Hyrule was literally ERASED at the end of TWW.

 

[Moblinking5000]

We don't actually have a name for the kingdom from before SS; just a description of "Hylia's Realm." I have come across many who argue that there was no one government, and it was just some tribes, but the structures are far too large, and specialized. Some large government was established, before SS. I know that in of itself does not mean that Rauru's Hyrule has to be Pre-SS, yet it does leave a useful spot to fill.

The fact that we don't have a name means that the kingdom may not have even called Hyrule then, which it is during the TotK memories.

Then we have the Master sword. Rauru, neither anyone else, had any concept of the Master Sword, asside from what Zelda had told them. Rauru was interested in pulling out all stops. If the sword existed in the past, he would have at least tried to make use of it, or find someone who could. Not even a simple comment about the blade, or hero for that matter, Zelda has told them so much about being like a legend/story they have herd before. The concept was completely novel to them.

By this logic, why don't the heroes of TMC, FS, FSA, or Zelda 1 and 2 use the MS?

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

The Hero of Time still played a part in saving Hyrule, he just ended up dying in the process.

this feels like a reach, if the text explicitly says "and together they save hyrule", then that just straight up sounds like they succeeded, it definitely should've been worded differently if link fell since it would've been the sages that stopped ganon in the real imprisoning war, not the princess and the hero of legend

though for the record, I did agree that the DT is the best spot for botw

OoT and Zelda 1 Ganon are one in the same; OoT Ganon keeps getting defeated and/or killed and unsealed/ressurected over and over again on the DT.

how exactly are we supposed to know this aside outside material? I always interpreted him as different since ganon's body seemed to have been destroyed in ALBW in that branch

The Hero's Shade/Hero of Time accepted the life of the hero, but on the AT. Both Historia and the Japanese intro of Majora's Mask make it clear that his legend was not remembered on the CT. Therefore, since his legend was not remembered, the ''ancient hero'' mentioned by the people must, by necessity, be a different offscreen hero, either between OoT and TP, or before OoT.

which people say this by the way? I can only think of the first light spirit that gave link his outfit, saying it was from an ancient hero
and well....we got SS now

An incarnation of Ganon is imprisoned in both wars, yes?

this is a personal point more so but I hate this and think its stupid, to name it the same thing as something that was exclusively for LTTP, especially if in a timeline branch where both had happened

BotW/TotK Rito are different from TWW Rito from culture to biology, and Koroks are just transformed Kokiri, with the Kokiri existing before the split.

still not getting behind the rito talk from last time

Is there ingame proof of this, are you using a theory to prove another a theory?

I think he's just inferencing based on the text in wind waker saying those tree sprouts would turn into a forest

 

[Moblinking5000]

if the text explicitly says "and together they save hyrule", then that just straight up sounds like they succeeded, it definitely should've been worded differently if link fell since it would've been the sages that stopped ganon in the real imprisoning war, not the princess and the hero of legend

But the HoT, the princess and the sages did work together to save Hyrule in OoT, on both the DT amd AT. The IW in ALttP's BS didn't happen until sometime later.

It also doesn't clarify whether the HoT survived or died, not that it should be expected to since that monument is from the perspective of the Zora.

how exactly are we supposed to know this aside outside material? I always interpreted him as different since ganon's body seemed to have been destroyed in ALBW in that branch

You mean, how are we supposed to know this aside from every official source speaking on this confirming that he is the same? His body is destroyed in ALttP as well, yet he's revived int he Oracle games, and his body is destroyed there, yet he's revived prior to ALBW, etc. why would this be any different? Remember, the only way to destroy a demon king permanently that we've seen is through a Triforce wish, as seen in regards to Ganon in TWW and Demise/The Imprisoned in SS. Otherwise demons can revive by themselves through their hatred/malice, as seen in games like SS and BotW.

which people say this by the way? I can only think of the first light spirit that gave link his outfit, saying it was from an ancient hero
and well....we got SS now

Twilight Princess Cutscenes: 36-Twilit Igniter, Fyrus

He doesn't look much like a Goron like that...My recording of cutscenes from Twilight Princess for everyone to enjoy. Playlist for all my cutscenes: http://w...

www.youtube.com

Go to 4:47 for another example.

And my point is that people would naturally think that the Hero's Shade and the ancient hero are one in the same, but we know due to official lore that this is not the case.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

But the HoT, the princess and the sages did work together to save Hyrule in OoT, on both the DT amd AT. The IW in ALttP's BS didn't happen until sometime later.

It also doesn't clarify whether the HoT survived or died, not that it should be expected to since that monument is from the perspective of the Zora.

doesn't the war happening later make it worse? why even mention the hero and the princess if what really mattered from a citizen's perspective was the sages sealing ganon away after a big war happening? sure ruto helping them out was important but again, saying "and together they saved hyrule" doesn't make sense if a big war followed that which didn't even involve the hero, it sounds very misleading to leave it at that

You mean, how are we supposed to know this aside from every official source speaking on this confirming that he is the same? His body is destroyed in ALttP as well, yet he's revived int he Oracle games, and his body is destroyed there, yet he's revived prior to ALBW, etc. why would this be any different? Remember, the only way to destroy a demon king permanently that we've seen is through a Triforce wish, as seen in regards to Ganon in TWW and Demise/The Imprisoned in SS. Otherwise demons can revive by themselves through their hatred/malice, as seen in games like SS and BotW.

it's different b/c there's no explanation we see for how he came back in Z1 compared to oracles or ALBW, SS offered its own explanation for demise returning, I don't know if we should count calamity ganon as a different circumstance but for Z1 ganon at least, he's just...there

also you answered it w/ exactly what I was not asking for, but it doesn't matter anyway

And my point is that people would naturally think that the Hero's Shade and the ancient hero are one in the same, but we know due to official lore that this is not the case.

then let's think of this, at the time that twilight princess came out, who are these characters talking about since link from ocarina of time doesn't work?

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

The fact that we don't have a name means that the kingdom may not have even called Hyrule then, which it is during the TotK memories.

First, that doesn't mean that it can't have been called Hyrule. Even I mentioned that it's more of an open slot, in of itself.

Secondly, Hyrule is named after Hylia, at least in universe. (Possibly the other way around, in real life.) Hylia is supposed to be most highly/directly involved in the kingdom before SS. The most logical name for a land so dedicated to Hylia, is Hyrule.

Thirdly, even if SS Zelda and Link didn't create the new monarchy over night, Zelda spent plenty of time in the past of SS, and had memories of being Hylia. They were still in a position to name it. It is very likely that the name of that kingdom before, would be carried over. This has happened in our own history. A country collapses, or is devided, then is able to return to the map, many years later.

By this logic, why don't the heroes of TMC, FS, FSA, or Zelda 1 and 2 use the MS?

To start, Zelda 1 and 2 get a bit of a pass, due to the Master Sword not even being thought of yet. Denying something based on inspiration order is like denying that the Master Sword in SS, BotW, and TotK is the same sword as in OoT, due to the absence of it communicating like we see in the newer games.

There are theories that the sword used in 2, which Link gains in 1, is indeed the Master Sword. I've theorized, based on the sword's other appearances (none in the main series, sure, but enough to go on) that the sword was a replica, which still counts as a reference.

In the other three, it's the same reason we don't hear about the Four Sword in games with the Master Sword. The story already has its blade of sealing power.

Additionally, all of those titles have their chosen hero, however simple the setup for the choosing was. In Rauru's time, there was no chosen hero, and no hint of a special weapon, aside from the ones in the future. Rauru didn't want to rely on the future. He was willing to trust in it, but wanted to solve the problem in his own time. No sealing weapon, despite them being in the lore. The absence here is different from the absence in those games.

 

[Moblinking5000]

doesn't the war happening later make it worse? why even mention the hero and the princess if what really mattered from a citizen's perspective was the sages sealing ganon away after a big war happening? sure ruto helping them out was important but again, saying "and together they saved hyrule" doesn't make sense if a big war followed that which didn't even involve the hero, it sounds very misleading to leave it at that

Both the events of OoT and the IW matter; the sages of OoT even have towns named after them in Zelda 2. World War II is still talked about even though other conflicts have happened.

it's different b/c there's no explanation we see for how he came back in Z1 compared to oracles or ALBW, SS offered its own explanation for demise returning, I don't know if we should count calamity ganon as a different circumstance but for Z1 ganon at least, he's just...there

Zelda 1 was made before any other game in the series. How did you expect them to talk about Ganon being revived when the other games weren't planned out? Zelda 2 is the game that introduced the fact that he can be revived to the lore. IMO, the Historia saying so and the Japanese ALttP manual having a passage that implies that ALttP Ganon and Zelda 1 Ganon are the same guy are perfectly valid sources, and I don't know why you're saying otherwise.

then let's think of this, at the time that twilight princess came out, who are these characters talking about since link from ocarina of time doesn't work?

Another offscreen hero. That's literally the only possibility in regards to the lore, as contrived as that may seem.

First, that doesn't mean that it can't have been called Hyrule. Even I mentioned that it's more of an open slot, in of itself.

No real evidence or proof of it.

Secondly, Hyrule is named after Hylia, at least in universe. (Possibly the other way around, in real life.) Hylia is supposed to be most highly/directly involved in the kingdom before SS. The most logical name for a land so dedicated to Hylia, is Hyrule.

Do we even know if the surface was officially a kingdom pre-SS?

Thirdly, even if SS Zelda and Link didn't create the new monarchy over night, Zelda spent plenty of time in the past of SS, and had memories of being Hylia. They were still in a position to name it. It is very likely that the name of that kingdom before, would be carried over. This has happened in our own history. A country collapses, or is devided, then is able to return to the map, many years later.

Assuming SS Zelda and Link even lived long enough to see the establishment of Hyrule Kingdom, which at best is unlikely, as that doesn't happen until the Era of Prosperity.

There are theories that the sword used in 2, which Link gains in 1, is indeed the Master Sword. I've theorized, based on the sword's other appearances (none in the main series, sure, but enough to go on) that the sword was a replica, which still counts as a reference.

Using theories to support theories is circular reasoning.

Additionally, all of those titles have their chosen hero, however simple the setup for the choosing was. In Rauru's time, there was no chosen hero,

It actually makes sense as to why he doesn't wield the MS, then.

It's established that only the Spirit of the Hero can wield it. We know this to be true, because in SS's description of it, it says ''Only Link may wield it'', and in TWW on the AT, where the original Spirit of the Hero left, the Hero of Winds had to prove himself worthy of being the new hero by completing a trial in the Tower of the Gods, which no other hero had to, in order to access Hyrule(and in turn, the MS).

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Both the events of OoT and the IW matter; the sages of OoT even have towns named after them in Zelda 2. World War II is still talked about even though other conflicts have happened.

I don't know why we're going back and forth on this since we both agree botw fits in the DT, I'm just saying the wording feels off if the hero didn't even win

Zelda 1 was made before any other game in the series. How did you expect them to talk about Ganon being revived when the other games weren't planned out?

ALBW, a modern zelda game that was made to fit after LTTP and before the NES games could've left something open to serve as a reason to why he comes back later, but it doesn't, that's why it had me confused had it not been for a book that I don't even own
it's not like the hero's shade where you can speculate who he is and the book just confirms it, for Z1 ganon, nothing's led me to believe that he's the same one from oot, not to mention it doesn't explain how it's the same exact person? just that it is? I mean you can tell me if it does

Another offscreen hero. That's literally the only possibility in regards to the lore, as contrived as that may seem.

b/w what the first light spirit said and renado, it feels like nintendo just goofed really badly since like you said, most people would think oot link
I mean its whatever, we obviously know it can't so it's just really peculiar

 

[Moblinking5000]

I don't know why we're going back and forth on this

Neither do I.

ALBW, a modern zelda game that was made to fit after LTTP and before the NES games could've left something open to serve as a reason to why he comes back later, but it doesn't, that's why it had me confused had it not been for a book that I don't even own

Revivals happen all the time for Ganon in the DT, it's not that big of a deal.

And what happens if they want to put new games between ALBW and Zelda 1 with Ganon? Seems limiting.

for Z1 ganon, nothing's led me to believe that he's the same one from oot, not to mention it doesn't explain how it's the same exact person? just that it is? I mean you can tell me if it does

Are you asking if Historia says that Zelda 1 Ganon is the same one from OoT/ALttP/Oracles? Because, yes, it does. It says that he's revived prior, so...yeah.

it feels like nintendo just goofed really badly since like you said, most people would think oot link
I mean its whatever, we obviously know it can't so it's just really peculiar

Peculiar, yes, but nothing writes off another hero between OoT and TP, or before OoT, and it's the only thing that lets everything remain consistent without contradictions, so I go with that as the answer. When you've eliminated every other answer from the realm of possibility, what remains, no matter how unlikely, must be true by neccessity.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Revivals happen all the time for Ganon in the DT, it's not that big of a deal.

And what happens if they want to put new games between ALBW and Zelda 1 with Ganon? Seems limiting.

the thing w/ his revivals is that they all happened on screen, except for him in Z1, and I suppose that's a fair enough point, even if it took 20+ years for a "proper" LTTP sequel to happen in the first place

]Peculiar, yes, but nothing writes off another hero between OoT and TP, or before OoT, and it's the only thing that lets everything remain consistent without contradictions, so I go with that as the answer. When you've eliminated every other answer from the realm of possibility, what remains, no matter how unlikely, must be true by neccessity.

I mean speaking of before oot, you don't think MC could be it? maybe even the hero of men for that matter