• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

My timeline idea

Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Location
In my coffin
Gender
Non-binary
Proof? Atleast the Seal War would have happened in the correct timeline...

Here's some proof the people on Outset island mention the hero,but the sages are never talked about it's the hero who gets all the credit.
Yet in ALTTP the people seem to know about the Sages,and the role that they played in the Seal War.
So the point is that the Sages played too big of a role in the War to not go down in history alongside the hero.
 

Mike Pothier

Lord Shaper
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Location
Southern California
If it was written close to ALTTP's time,then again that would cause problems.The memory of Hyrule vanished,only the legend of the hero of Time survived,but the sages are not mention,so at the most the legend of the hero might have survived,but the full legend of the Seal War was lost.

It doesn't go into detail about how much was remembered. In fact, the only thing the opening of WW specifically says was forgotten was eventual fate of Hyrule. Its perfectly reasonable that documentation survived the flood, was eventually gathered, and turned into the Book of Mudora. If so many treasures could be sealed in water tight chests, why not scrolls or books?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Location
In my coffin
Gender
Non-binary
It doesn't go into detail about how much was remembered. In fact, the only thing the opening of WW specifically says was forgotten was eventual fate of Hyrule. Its perfectly reasonable that documentation survived the flood, was eventually gathered, and turned into the Book of Mudora. If so many treasures could be sealed in water tight chests, why not scrolls or books?

It's that in ALTTP it seems like they never had to build a new Hyrule.
I myself don't believe in the new Hyrule theory,but I'm trying to show it in a realistic way.
If I found documents of a old kingdom and was able to create a new land in no way would it be similar to the old land.
But as we see in ALTTP,the people in the new Hyrule seem to know all the old legends by heart.Yet in WW they had no knowledge,it would be impossible for them to know the old legends as well as they do.
Therefore WW and ALTTP can't take place on the same timeline.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
It's that in ALTTP it seems like they never had to build a new Hyrule.
I myself don't believe in the new Hyrule theory,but I'm trying to show it in a realistic way.
If I found documents of a old kingdom and was able to create a new land in no way would it be similar to the old land.
But as we see in ALTTP,the people in the new Hyrule seem to know all the old legends by heart.Yet in WW they had no knowledge,it would be impossible for them to know the old legends as well as they do.
Therefore WW and ALTTP can't take place on the same timeline.

i kind of agree with this for one main reason. the book of mudera or modera or mudora or whatever its called seems like a bible. the bible is a book of legends that are written and basically worshiped. the people of Hyrule seem to worship the book, but who was around after OoT to be able to keep the legends going. and in any case, why doesnt the book seem to mention a previous Hyrule or a previous flood or any of that?

you cant say its because the game was made before WW. if thats the case then there should have been some addition in WW or PH to explain why the book of moasdifghasdfg doesnt have those legends in it or blah blah blah.

my point is that not everyone believes in the bible so why would everyone believe in the book of "m"?

the point that Midna is getting at is that they go from knowing next to nothing about Hyrule to knowing everything about it. it makes no sense.

if its so important then they would have made it some amazing item to retrieve from the sea in WW or PH but this doesnt happen.

i never liked that book (or any book) as a reason for explaining things. its too old to be evidence because you are basically saying that it was made years before a timeline was even thought of so that it could explain a timeline.
 
V

Vaati

Guest
This is my first post here lol...

Alright,

Minish cap is first in the time line, there are few reasons why I say this
1. The hero in the story is dubbed "The Hero of Men" Not the hero of time.
2. And the start of the story, Link wears green but is hat-less untill he meets the mage, who rides on links head-- and after the game he gives link a green hat to wear.
3. It gives a reason why hyrule is over run with monsters.


The seconed in the game is Legend of Zelda: OoT.

But after this, it gets complex, the time-line splits.

There is one hyrule(1), where Link and zelda are children.

In the other hyrule(2) is the one right after OoT, after link saves Zelda, he leaves.

---------
Meh I have to go for now, i'll try to finsh this later if I get the chance :(

Here is a picture of the time-line I think fits though.

time.png
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
Keep in mind, we don't know everything in the book of Mudora. It could have its own flood story, similar to the Bible's.

thats the thing, the book was made into the series before WW was even being thought up so of course there is no flood in it. if there was a flood in it, then it would have been added into the game or spoken of. youre argument is that it COULD have a flood story. my argument is that it COULD NOT have a flood story. it goes both ways and gets us absolutely no further in this argument.

why couldnt they just add a little tid bit about it in WW if they wanted it to be in that timeline later on? or in PH even?

the fact that its not mentioned or found or anything in those two games makes it likely that the book only is about the history around OoT and before it.

also, that would mean that when the book was found, everyone believed in the book no questions asked. lets say that some day we find a book talking about an ancient land that was lost ONLY A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. would you just automatically believe that its real? no, but if your theory is correct, then all of those people who knew nothing about Hyrule decided they were gonna make a place just like it based off of a book they found...thats quite literally the definition of blind faith.

This is my first post here lol...

Alright,

Minish cap is first in the time line, there are few reasons why I say this
1. The hero in the story is dubbed "The Hero of Men" Not the hero of time.
2. And the start of the story, Link wears green but is hat-less untill he meets the mage, who rides on links head-- and after the game he gives link a green hat to wear.
3. It gives a reason why hyrule is over run with monsters.


The seconed in the game is Legend of Zelda: OoT.

But after this, it gets complex, the time-line splits.

There is one hyrule(1), where Link and zelda are children.

In the other hyrule(2) is the one right after OoT, after link saves Zelda, he leaves.

---------
Meh I have to go for now, i'll try to finsh this later if I get the chance :(

Here is a picture of the time-line I think fits though.

time.png

lol thats the gametrailer.com timeline!!

i wouldnt use that as your timeline or you WILL get made fun of..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom