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

[Moblinking5000]

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

He was revived offscreen between the Oracles and the backstory of ALBW, too.

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

Could be one of those two, I suppose. Not enough to say which hero.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

He was revived offscreen between the Oracles and the backstory of ALBW, too.

wait when? the only thing in b/w oracles and past is LA
edit: blegh nevermind, that was changed, but still, then there's nothing in b/w

 

[Moblinking5000]

wait when? the only thing in b/w oracles and past is LA

The current, up to date DT is this:

ALttP/LA-Oracles-ALBW/TFH-Z1/Z2-BotW*/TotK*

Ganon is revived prior to the backstory of ALBW, and in the backstory of ALBW, he gets the ToP again, and is defeated by the hero and the Seven Sages of that time period, and is sealed(not killed) ''in darkness'', with the other two pieces going to the Spirit of the Hero(Courage) and to the Royal Family(Wisdom).

*Not confirmed to be in the DT, but I added them there since I believe that's where they go.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

wasn't the backstory of ALBW supposed to be ALTTP?

 

[RamboBambiBambo]

ALBW was originally going to be a remaster of ALttP. However as development went onward it was made into its own game.
So Nintendo declared it to be a sequel that takes place after the events of OoA/OoS

ALttP/LA-Oracles-ALBW/TFH-Z1/Z2-BotW*/TotK

False.

There are three incarnations of Link presently known on the Downfall Timeline.

ALttP/LA/OoA/OoS is all one Link.
ALBW/TFH Green Link is all one Link.
LoZ/ZIITAoL are all one Link.

And unfortunately there are too many contradictory elements to the story told in BotW and TotK for it to be on any of the known timelines.

 

[Moblinking5000]

ALBW was originally going to be a remaster of ALttP. However as development went onward it was made into its own game.
So Nintendo declared it to be a sequel that takes place after the events of OoA/OoS


False.

There are three incarnations of Link presently known on the Downfall Timeline.

ALttP/LA/OoA/OoS is all one Link.
ALBW/TFH Green Link is all one Link.
LoZ/ZIITAoL are all one Link.

And unfortunately there are too many contradictory elements to the story told in BotW and TotK for it to be on any of the known timelines.

Oracles Link is no longer ALttP/LA Link, that was retconned. The Japanese Encyclopedia changed it, which makes sense considering that Link and Zelda don't know each other.

BotW and TotK work fine on the DT, IMO.

 

[RamboBambiBambo]

Oracles Link is no longer ALttP/LA Link, that was retconned. The Japanese Encyclopedia changed it, which makes sense considering that Link and Zelda don't know each other.

Wait... the encyclopedia was re-released in Japan with another update and didn't bother telling western audiences?
Rude.

BotW and TotK work fine on the DT, IMO.

Nah.
Too many contradictory factors.
In TotK it is established that Ganondorf existed in his first incarnation near the starting era of the Hyrule Kingdom. Whereas in the established continuity the Hyrule Kingdom was founded likely by Link and Zelda after the end of Skyward Sword and Ganondorf didn't pop around until Ocarina of Time's era millenia later.

Since Ganondorf was sealed away in the Imprisoning War in TotK's ancient past, no Gerudo Male had been able to be born since then and Hyrule had to face off against Ganondorf's evil projected in the form of the Great Calamity or they had to contend with other evils over the ages, such as Vaati, Malladus, and Bellum. Since Ganondorf didn't die, he could not reincarnate as he was still alive and sealed away. Which means that we now have three separate Ganondorfs. OoT Ganondorf who would become a recurring enemy in The Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, A Link to the Past, A Link Between Worlds via Yuga Ganon, Oracle of Ages/Oracle of Seasons, OG LoZ, and Zelda II. Then you have the Reincarnated Ganondorf from Four Swords Adventures. And now we have Ganondorf from BotW/HW-AoC/TotK.

There are so many core details of this rendition of Ganondorf that defy the main continuity in many ways, especially given the fact that Nintendo has stated that BotW takes place so far into the future that all the previous games are roughly 100,000+ years prior to the events of the Great Calamity 10,000 years ago.

I've already expressed my grievances about BotW/TotK being either a retcon/reboot of the franchise at worst or taking place on a previously unexplored timeline at best.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

rambo none of this even addresses my last question

 

[RamboBambiBambo]

Yes, the backstory of ALBW is ALttP, seeing as the game takes place in the same rendition of Hyrule and canonically takes place after that game.

 

[tman]

My timeline theory has the past of TotK replace the imprisoning war from OOT, and it occurs about a generation or two early. This assumes a timeline split in SS.

The "Ancient Hero" of BOTW I think is the first hero against the first calamity, as depicted in the mural.

So there's one timeline with OOT and the three timelines.

Then there's the BOTW timeline where OOT's imprisoning war takes place a few generations EARLY, but the BOTW's parallel time period for OOT is the Ancient Hero of the first calamity, and so the first champions of the divine beasts are the OOT sages.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Using theories to support theories is circular reasoning.

Okay. I see how you are choosing to approach this.

I'm not using theories to support theories. I am using what we experience, in game, to build my theories. Within that framework, I may choose to include other theories that work, to show the stability of the framework, not to build it. And, if this is truly how you feel, your whole premise of this theory is based on a theory as a spring board. The Downfall Timeline placement is a theory. It may be a theory that I think has strong evidence, but it's only a theory. If we remember how the creators stated that Breath of the Wild takes place so far after all of the games, that anything could have happened. That mean that all theories not directly trying to prove placement in one timeline must, by your statement, be able to work with any of the three established timelines.

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.

But wait, I thought you were against using theories to support theories. Besides, that is restrictive, in my opinion. I think a good theory should be able to operate in the light of other theories. When I bring up other theories, when talking about a theory, it is in the same vein; not to build the theory, but to test it out. Is there any evidence you can provide to support your clame of another off screen hero? Does it help, or work against any lore, theory, or story we experience?

But, the real kicker, is that I didn't bring in the theories about the Magical Sword to support my theory, but to test your question about no Master Sword reference in Zelda 1 and 2. At best, your statement was avoiding the issue, which you finally address with this statement:

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).

That only takes into account that Rauru, himself didn't use the Master Sword, if it even existed, but ignores the fact that it would have still been mentioned, and the blade, as well as the accompanying hero, were a completely foreign concept to everyone in the Tears of the Kingdom past. Nothing about a lost weapon matching Zelda's description, or being at a loss for someone who can use it, or even a comment about her descriptions sounding like some old fairy tail. There wasn't even a hint of reconition, asside from what information Zelda provided. To say that there was a Spirit of the Hero, but it just didn't appear, in a time of Hyrule's need (which it is supposed to do), and everyone simply forgot about it, but remembered a few generations later; is quite a lot of supporting your theory with a theory.

Which you have stated you are against.

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

The game itself states that Hylia was the one in charge. The dragons, that controlled their own areas, took orders directly from her. The facilities Link visits are far too large, and specalized to be anything other than a unified nation. (I feel like I have stated this before.) Sounding a bit like a divine right monarchy, to me. Of course, I don't think the right to rule gets any more divine then the Goddess herself.

If you are asking about some official statement, we both know it is extremely unlikely to ever happen, either way, just like what timeline branch the new games sit in.

I'm still inclined to say that while your evidence does support a Tears of the Kingdom past that is inside of the existing timeline, I don't think the bar is back far enough. I have given you my reasons for placing the past before Skyward Sword. (The absence of a Master Sword, the absence of a chosen Hero, I lightly touched on the architecture we find in Skyward Sword, the art found in that architecture, and the technology found in Skyward Sword). But you have yet to show me why it can't be that far back.


And, by the way.

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.

I said that they would have given it a name.

 

[Moblinking5000]

Alright, this argument is becoming lond winded, so I'll put it plainly as to why there I think TotK past must be between SS and TMC, as that is the original point of contention: Because, officially speaking, aside from the founding of New Hyrule on the AT, that's where the only time when Hyrule Kingdom is OFFICIALLY said to have been founded. If TotK were to support multiple foundings of Hyrule, with TotK-past being the first founding before the one between SS-TMC, they wouldn't have just called it ''the founding of Hyrule'', they would've specifically called it ''the first founding'' or the ''the founding of the FIRST kingdom'', or atleast would've acknowledged other times the kingdom has been founded, instead of just saying THE founding. There's also been times in which the Spirit of the Hero hasn't shown up, such as the backstory of ALttP, for example, so it's not hard to fathom the same would happen here.

It's also interesting that the official JP site, even after updating the timeline to include TotK, still has between SS-TMC and between PH-ST as the only two foundings of Hyrule Kingdom: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/zelda/en/history/index.html

I'm not using theories to support theories. I am using what we experience, in game, to build my theories. Within that framework, I may choose to include other theories that work, to show the stability of the framework, not to build it. And, if this is truly how you feel, your whole premise of this theory is based on a theory as a spring board. The Downfall Timeline placement is a theory. It may be a theory that I think has strong evidence, but it's only a theory. If we remember how the creators stated that Breath of the Wild takes place so far after all of the games, that anything could have happened. That mean that all theories not directly trying to prove placement in one timeline must, by your statement, be able to work with any of the three established timelines.

Fair enough on these points. My reading comprehension was kind of ****ed, since I was high AF when I read it, lol, but you're right here, and I concede these points. Using theories as framework for other ideas is a good way to show how stable they are, for sure. I was tripping like a MF when I interpreted that statement.

Also, though, the SotH being the only one able to use the MS isn't really a theory as it is something that's not really a theory or up to debate, though; SS itself straight up says that only Link may wield it, Faron saying that he carries the Spirit of the Hero due to him possessing the blade, etc. that's more or less confirmation as far as I can tell, and explains why you don't see anyone other than Link wield the MS in a Zelda game. Rauru could've went for the Triforce, since that exists, but he didn't nor is it mentioned(probably because the developers wanted to tell a story where the TF isn't relevant to the plot, if I had to guess).

 

[GZ Zelda]

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

This is being super charitable.

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.

Wouldn't he have been remembered as the "savior from the future, the wielder of the Triforce of Courage"? It is only because of him that Ganondorf was sealed in the Twilight Realm, and he should have formed a relationship with Zelda (unless he died in the Lost Woods, except we know that he had kids). I just don't understand, I guess logically, how Link was not remembered as a hero in the Child Timeline (especially if he was remembered as a hero in the Downfall Timeline if that's what you're arguing). I thought he was remembered as a hero but died before he could train anyone? Maybe I need to replay TP.

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.

They have the same naming convention (with the -i surletter). Maybe there is a world where the Rito evolved without the Zora, maybe they're the Watarara, and I might be fudging the evidence cuz I don't think TotK works in the DT, but I think it is fair to say that the only timeline pre-BotW that we saw the Rito was in the AT.

Hyrule was literally ERASED at the end of TWW.

So what was the Great Deku Tree on about with his "seeds of Hyrule" plan?

Alright, this argument is becoming lond winded, so I'll put it plainly as to why there I think TotK past must be between SS and TMC, as that is the original point of contention: Because, officially speaking, aside from the founding of New Hyrule on the AT, that's where the only time when Hyrule Kingdom is OFFICIALLY said to have been founded. If TotK were to support multiple foundings of Hyrule, with TotK-past being the first founding before the one between SS-TMC, they wouldn't have just called it ''the founding of Hyrule'', they would've specifically called it ''the first founding'' or the ''the founding of the FIRST kingdom'', or atleast would've acknowledged other times the kingdom has been founded, instead of just saying THE founding. There's also been times in which the Spirit of the Hero hasn't shown up, such as the backstory of ALttP, for example, so it's not hard to fathom the same would happen here.

I agree with this, a major plotpoint in TotK is the necessity of building Hyrule Castle in its specific location after the original Hyrule Castle was built on the Great Plateau. This turns very quickly from a timeline theory to a geography theory, but there was no Hyrule Castle pre-SS, that's for sure.

That only takes into account that Rauru, himself didn't use the Master Sword, if it even existed, but ignores the fact that it would have still been mentioned, and the blade, as well as the accompanying hero, were a completely foreign concept to everyone in the Tears of the Kingdom past. Nothing about a lost weapon matching Zelda's description, or being at a loss for someone who can use it, or even a comment about her descriptions sounding like some old fairy tail. There wasn't even a hint of reconition, asside from what information Zelda provided. To say that there was a Spirit of the Hero, but it just didn't appear, in a time of Hyrule's need (which it is supposed to do), and everyone simply forgot about it, but remembered a few generations later; is quite a lot of supporting your theory with a theory.

I think after the Master Sword was used to seal the Triforce in the Sacred Realm, early Hyrule didn't care much about it. Minish Cap and Four Swords speak to this. By tying the Master Sword to the ability to gain the literally infinite power that was used to destroy the final remnants of an Imprisoned Demise, it makes the Master Sword exceptionally dangerous to wield.

As for the Spirit of the Hero, maybe Rauru or Zelda got it, doing what was necessary to "save" Hyrule. Kind of a copout, the question still remains, but Rauru did seal Ganondorf, just like Link did in OoT.

wasn't the backstory of ALBW supposed to be ALTTP?

It's supposed to be but Moblinking is right that it doesn't line up perfectly.

From ALBW: "This gift from the gods, Hyrule's greatest treasure [the Triforce], will grant the wish of any mortal who touches it. The Triforce once stoked greed in the hearts of men. A legendary war was fought to keep it out of evil hands. To end the war for the Triforce, the royal family decided to hide it in the Sacred Realm. They summoned the Seven Sages of legend, who used their power to seal the Triforce away. The Demon King Ganon was once just a thief -- until the man broke into the Sacred Realm. There he stole the Triforce and transformed himself. Then he took his evil campaign back to Hyrule. A hero of legend arose from humble beginnings, awoken to his purpose by a princess of Hyrule. With the Master Sword, the blade of evil's bane, he sought the descendants of the Seven Sages. Together they defeated the Demon King Ganon -- and sealed him away in darkness. The Triforce was split into three pieces, separated forever. One piece remains with the royal family. Another piece has fallen into the hands of Ganon, sealed away with him. The third piece has vanished, though legend says it is hidden in the spirit of a true hero. It slumbers now somewhere in Hyrule -- waiting for the time when the world needs a new hero."

This describes the pre-OoT Triforce wars, an event that kinda lines up with ALttP but not really, and the ending of the Oracle games when the Triforce splits.

The "and sealed him away in darkness" does not appear to be true for ALttP: the silver arrows killed him in ALttP, like the Master Sword killed him in TP. BUT! After his defeat in the Oracle games, located in the Room of Rites, who knows what happened to his corpse. The theory I propose is that the Room of Rites' "unknown location" is in Lorule. Which explains how his corpse ends up sealed in Lorule in ALBW.

But the "legendary war" part brings into question: what "royal family" and sage-group sealed the Triforce with the Master Sword in the Temple of Time. If TotK takes place before SS, we still don't know the answer to this question. If TotK takes place after SS, then Rauru, Sonia, Lizardgoro, Camelgerudo, Elezora, and Birdrito put down a bunch of post-SS fighting and sealed the Triforce before Zelda was sent to the past. Is that right? Or am I missing something.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Fair enough on these points. My reading comprehension was kind of ****ed, since I was high AF when I read it, lol, but you're right here, and I concede these points. Using theories as framework for other ideas is a good way to show how stable they are, for sure. I was tripping like a MF when I interpreted that statement.

It's only fair, if you share!

Also, though, the SotH being the only one able to use the MS isn't really a theory as it is something that's not really a theory or up to debate, though; SS itself straight up says that only Link may wield it, Faron saying that he carries the Spirit of the Hero due to him possessing the blade, etc. that's more or less confirmation as far as I can tell, and explains why you don't see anyone other than Link wield the MS in a Zelda game. Rauru could've went for the Triforce, since that exists, but he didn't nor is it mentioned(probably because the developers wanted to tell a story where the TF isn't relevant to the plot, if I had to guess).

I'm thinking more in general, like how King Roham used Zelda and Link. the very first time I brought up the issue, I stated:

If the sword existed in the past, he would have at least tried to make use of it, or find someone who could.

I guess I wasn't clear on the distinction between trying to make use of something in a general way, versus directly using it himself. The reinforce is a good point. I agree that the developers obviously want to make the story (BotW and TotK) work without the Triforce. I think it might make in universe since that he might have known, or thought, nobody was worthy to use it, so didn't want to risk the enemy gaining a piece. It's pure speculation, there, and I would rather have some in universe acknowledgement. We don't need a whole memory cut scene, either. A simple note from the chamberlain about "King Rauru not relying on fairy-tails about this, or that," or wanting to keep things secret; something.

Elsewhere someone also brought up how Sonia shows no evidence of the sealing power that is inherited from Hylia.

Alright, this argument is becoming lond winded, so I'll put it plainly as to why there I think TotK past must be between SS and TMC, as that is the original point of contention: Because, officially speaking, aside from the founding of New Hyrule on the AT, that's where the only time when Hyrule Kingdom is OFFICIALLY said to have been founded. If TotK were to support multiple foundings of Hyrule, with TotK-past being the first founding before the one between SS-TMC, they wouldn't have just called it ''the founding of Hyrule'', they would've specifically called it ''the first founding'' or the ''the founding of the FIRST kingdom'', or atleast would've acknowledged other times the kingdom has been founded, instead of just saying THE founding. There's also been times in which the Spirit of the Hero hasn't shown up, such as the backstory of ALttP, for example, so it's not hard to fathom the same would happen here.

It's also interesting that the official JP site, even after updating the timeline to include TotK, still has between SS-TMC and between PH-ST as the only two foundings of Hyrule Kingdom: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/zelda/en/history/index.html

This is all basically still accurate, in that it's the founding of the kingdom we know, and have played through, and the history most hylians, through each game would know. On top of that, there is no official way the two new games connect. I doubt there will be any official connecting information released any time soon, if at all.


Side note:
I think it's also important to point out that despite our disagreements, I still think you are a great theorist. I think trying to crack these problems is fun, even if we don't come to the same conclusion. I appreciate critical questions that challenge my theories, and make me think harder about them. That's one of the reasons I have been hoping you would take a look at my most recent theory post, and give some feedback. I know you will look at it with a critical eye.

Architectural History, from Tears of the Kingdom to Skyward Sword

I am personally a fan of the idea that the past of Tears of the Kingdom is the time before Skyward Sword. To this end, I went through both games, comparing features of the structures. I originally grabbed screenshots from both games, with the intent of posting comparisons. Instead, to make this...

zeldadungeon.net

You might even find something useful for this discussion.

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

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.

Could it potentially be both? Totk did the same thing as SS in establishing an ancient history and then implying more history before that. By this I mean the fact fact Rauru and Mineru are stated to be the last of the Zonai. This could imply that the Zonai existed before the time of SS, and ran through until sometime afterwards. So the ancient past we see with Rauru and Sonia takes place after the events of SS. I'm just not sure it would make sense for Hyrule to be founded by Rauru, the last of the zonai die off, Demise wakes up, the Hylians retreat to the sky, the Hylians go back on land and then found Hyrule again having no recollection of their history.


Addressing the main topic of the thread though, I think this is a really interesting take. It hadn't occurred to me to consider, "how ancient is 'ancient'". My only alternative theory so far was an entirely separate timeline branching from the time paradox in Skyward Sword and taking place around the time OoT would've in the original timeline. My only method rn for determining if that may be the case is reviewing the theories for where BotW is placed with new information in mind.