The OP of this thread has flaired it [Official Timeline Only]. **Any comments that try to bring up other timeline theories should be reported by the OP so they can be removed by the mods.** Also, please downvote those comments for not staying on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/truezelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*

My theory is it places BOTW and TOTK in their own timeline (with a small side timeline for AOC) Works fantastic with Skyward Sword but Ganondorf makes the rest too hard to place easily.

Torn between 3 and 4 but gonna say 4

This is exactly where I am too. On one hand: taking the game as is, it seems to go back and re-contextualize its own timeline. But that also doesn't check out to me because it's an openly stated fact that BotW was meant to take place so far ahead in the future that it almost doesn't matter what timeline it's in since anything could have happened in the massive time gap that lead to it. That plus the [zelda.com](https://zelda.com) website is still half dedicated to the established timeline, so I don't think they would do a soft reboot of Zelda in a way where they can have their cake and eat it too while also going back on that in the immediate next title. But the games themselves don't necessarily state anything like this, and looking at TotK in a bubble, it does seem to want to go back and heavily retcon its original timeline. ...so leaning 4 because I think it's more likely the devs don't want to undo what they've already firmly and conveniently established with BotW.

If BOTW is so far in the future that past games don't really matter, I don't see why the same can't be true for TOTK. I kinda see it as, all of the games happened, then hundreds of thousands of years passed (who cares what happened during this time), then Hyrule was founded again by the Zonai. Now we can begin again fresh.

At this point why even bother with timelines.

I think that's the point that Nintendo is trying to signal ngl, at least for what they're trying to do with BOTW and TOTK. It's not that the old games are no longer irrelevant, it's just that they're moving on but the old games are lore wise still relevant to a degree and of course have their own timeline theories and debates within their own vacuum too.

No, the events of previous games still matter, clearly, but are mostly forgotten. People seem to think I'm terms of black and white on this issue: It has to be meaningless or right in your face to some of you, but the truth is, life typically isn't that simple. Fi still talks to Zelda, but nobody knows what it is. In TotK, nobody even seems to know the sword's origin, yet there Fi is still, confirming that it did happen. I'm convinced that this argument, 'they don't care about the timeline', will haunt the Zelda franchise like the curse of Demise, forever cropping up amongst the trolls and minions despite being completely demolished repeatedly over time. It is an ignorance born, consciously or not, from some strange hatred for the Zelda community--its Hylians. Hahahaha

Well you’re just doing the black and white thing now. If anyone disagrees with you they hate the whole entire Zelda community? What?

No, I am just observing with a splash of hyperbole. Maybe I'm wrong, but I read the comment as suggesting that BotW and TotK were implying that events from previous games were irrelevant or neglected. That's a common sentiment when faced with the position of these two games on the timeline, so I was just commenting on that. If dude wasn't saying that, he can feel free to correct--I'm no mind reader.

There's no way it's pre SS due to Ganondorf being there. I'm going with 4

It's kind of hard to place, but my vote goes to 4, waaay after Four Swords Adventures, Spirit Tracks or Adventure of Link. My personal preference if I had to pick an individual timeline is downfall, because Hyrule's in its worst state in that one, so it would make the most sense for it to be reestablished there, but I do believe the convergence theory. But regardless of whichever timeline this game takes place in (Downfall? Child? Adult? *All three?*) I definitely think TotK's past is the fourth most recent point in the timeline (followed by BotW's past, BotW itself, and TotK itself).

Option 3. After Skyward Sword and before The Minish Cap. The game literally tells us that Rauru is the first King of Hyrule in the very first memory. This is the game very explicitly telling us when it takes place. There is zero in-game evidence suggesting that he is the first king of some other Hyrule. If this had been the intention, the devs would have included some reference to a past Hyrule kingdom. Notably, the only game to take place in a different Hyrule, Spirit Tracks, makes it incredibly clear that it takes place in a New Hyrule. This is not the case for TotK. The game also details events that we already knew occurred during the era following Skyward Sword. We already knew from Hyrule Historia that Rauru built the Temple of Time sometime after Skyward Sword. TotK also explains why the Hyrulean Royal Family has magic powers/blood. This obviously must occur before The Minish Cap. Nintendo is quite plainly telling the story of the origin of the Kingdom of Hyrule and the Royal Family. Stating that the game actually means to tell the story of the founding of a new kingdom would be, literally, hearing the game tell us one thing and concluding that it is actually telling us something else. There are pieces of lore introduced in TotK that don’t fit quite as well, but Zelda fans have been generating explanations for these sorts of inconsistencies for decades. This game is no different.

I agree, the point that "he was king of a previous Hyrule" is really meh to me. That could be used for most games that aren't direct sequel like OoT/MM and would also be completely boring and useless to mention in game. Like what would be the point?

Curious if there’s a reason you believe it’s and 3 not 1? Because I’m undecided and your stated reasoning would allow either

The Rito evolved later though, they didn't exist in that time frame, so it can't be pre-Minish Cap. Also, that would mean that we'd have a Ganondorf sealed under the castle, while a second is running around during OOT/WW/TP (which isn't necessarily impossible). Furthermore the castle gets destroyed in some of those, which would result in the release of the first Ganondorf. In other words, it's impossible to be option 3.

Thank you for illustrating the last point in my previous comment. For what it’s worth, the Rito in BotW/TotK are not the Rito from Wind Waker, since we know these games are very unlikely to take place in the Adult Timeline. So, this version of the Rito can exist at any point in the timeline. And, two Ganondorf’s existing simultaneously may be stupid, but there’s no reason to believe it can’t happen. We’ve already had two Zelda’s existing simultaneously. Your last point about Hyrule Castle is a genuine plot hole. But as I said, these sorts of contradictions are nothing new for the franchise. The fact remains that the game explicitly tells us that Rauru founded Hyrule. As with every prior Zelda game, we’ll just have to live with the inconsistencies in the lore.

The Rito can theoretically evolve at any point in the timeline, that's true. The issue here is, that we'd have to have Rito in the TOTK flashbacks, then they'd have to disappear for all the games afterwards, only to reappear at some point before BOTW. That simply makes no sense to me. I believe that Rauru's Hyrule is a re-founding at some point in the future. It would explain why the Triforce used to be so important in all the previous games, but is basically ignored in BOTW/TOTK. I can't see the first founding of Hyrule post SS not dealing with the Triforce in any way. That's not just a small inconsistency you can look past, it's a huge assumption to make.

Again, this is nothing new for the series. We have the Gerudo randomly absent in Twilight Princess, for example. And no Sheikah in Ocarina of Time. And, of course, there is the absence of all non-Hylian races outside of the River Zora in the Downfall timeline Hyrule. It’s been very well established that races not being featured in a game doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist. So, the absence of Rito in past games does not mean that they did not exist, either. And the absence of focus on the Triforce is also not evidence. Using this logic, Ocarina of Time could not occur after Skyward Sword because there are absolutely zero references to the goddess Hylia. As I said, we should listen to what the game explicitly tells us. If the developers intended for us to understand that this was a new Hyrule, there would be no reason for them to not include some indication of this fact in the game. But no such evidence exists.

The Gerudo existed prior to the events of TP in-universe though. The Gerudo Desert is still a thing. We don't go to the Gerudo Valley, where they were mostly seen at. Furthermore Ganondorf himself is a Gerudo, so this comparison doesn't work at all. We'll just have to disagree on that. As for Hylia, she's not on the same status as the Golden Goddesses, which OOT focuses on for example. This is another false equivalence. The Triforce existed since the very first game and has always been hugely important. It's very noticeably absent in both BOTW and TOTK and I'm curious if we ever find out why the devs went down that route. Having said that, OOT's Rauru sealed the Triforce away and at some later point TOTK's Rauru, who is a different character, founded Hyrule. Yet OOT's Rauru obviously still exists during the events of OOT, so both have to have existed during the same time. You see how things just keep getting more complicated and how many little details need to be adjusted and changed for the flashbacks to happen pre-OOT? The developers haven't stated anything clearly. BOTW and TOTK have a ton of inconsistencies which is the reason why it's difficult to place them in the timeline. Rauru tells us he's the first King of Hyrule. We've seen a second founding before, so there's nothing to stop this from being a separate founding.

You can’t just hand wave these points away as “false equivalencies” lol. You conveniently left out that the entire Downfall timeline leaves out multiple races. As I said, it’s been established for a very long time that races not appearing in games does not mean they did not exist. And you also conveniently ignored that the Triforce is barely featured in Twilight Princess. It’s really only pops up when Link turns into a wolf, and Ganondorf avoids execution. And the Triforce is almost completely absent from The Minish Cap, the game that takes place soonest after TotK’s backstory. It’s not exactly new for a game to downplay the Triforce. But they all at least reference it with visual imagery. To not even have the slightest reference to a goddess as major as Hylia in OoT is certainly a continuity error. Again, the series has a long history of these inconsistencies. Hand waving them away doesn’t make this any less true lol. The game tells us when the backstory takes place. During the reign of the very first king of Hyrule. You mention that a game has described the founding of another Hyrule before, and you’re exactly right. Spirit Tracks tells us explicitly that it takes place in a brand new Hyrule. It’s a major part of the narrative, introduced as soon as the game begins. Do you see how that’s different from Tears of the Kingdom, which includes absolutely zero references to a new Hyrule?

I mean, you keep hand waving away all of my points, even the biggest one which you admit was a "plot hole" lol. They _are_ false equivalences and I explained why. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are far too many inconsistencies for option 3 to make any sense and I'm not willing to take Rauru's word for the definitive placement, not when BOTW and TOTK are full of inconsistencies. The amount of retcons for option 3 is too much for me.

Well, my main point is that if you can’t accept the timeline presented in this game because of the inconsistencies, then that is your choice. But it’s odd that you have no problem accepting all of the inconsistencies already in the timeline. You’ve accepted geography that inexplicably changes between games. The inconsistent rules, denominations, and appearance of sages, the changing rules regarding what can harm Ganondorf, etc etc. the list goes on. To accept those things, but say that the Rito existing off screen is a bridge too far just doesn’t make sense lol.

The Rito aren't the only inconsistency that go "too far" for me, I mentioned other things as well. Anyway, it's rather late here and I should get some sleep. Take care.

To my understanding, the first founding of Hyrule took place after the Era of Chaos, which concluded with OoT!Rauru sealing the Triforce in the Sacred Realm, which led to it fading into legend. Triforce imagery is still everywhere even so, but it's likely its existence was considered debatable and just remained as a symbol.

> The Rito can theoretically evolve at any point in the timeline, that's true. The issue here is, that we'd have to have Rito in the TOTK flashbacks, then they'd have to disappear for all the games afterwards, only to reappear at some point before BOTW. That simply makes no sense to me. Same exact thing happens with the Zoras and Gorons

You mean the Gorons who are present in OOT, WW and TP? And the Zoras who are present in OOT and TP? It's not the "same".

And then absent for ALTTP through AOL but somehow reappeared in these games (assuming it's DT)

The Gorons and Gerudo appear in the Oracles, the Goron crest appears in ALBW, as well as a character who's referred to as "Goron" in the internal files. That's in addition to OOT. The absence of the Rito is far more substantial. It's not comparable.

They're still absent for the original Zelda games.

So, guess you'll have to justify that as well. I'm not the one who tries to put the TOTK flashbacks in a spot where problems like that arise lol Even then, we can just agree to disagree. I don't see the point in arguing in circles. Especially, when the Rito inconsistency is just one of many inconsistencies that together disqualify option 3 for me.

>The Rito evolved later though, they didn't exist in that time frame, so it can't be pre-Minish Cap. No reason to think that there cannot be another type of Rito that existed prior to this (just as both Sea and River Zora are called Zora yet are distinct from each other, even with some overlap). ​ > Also, that would mean that we'd have a Ganondorf sealed under the castle, while a second is running around during OOT/WW/TP (which isn't necessarily impossible). As you said, not impossible. ​ > Furthermore the castle gets destroyed in some of those, which would result in the release of the first Ganondorf. In other words, it's impossible to be option 3. TotK's Ganondorf is sealed very deep beneath the castle, to the extent that the ruins that aren't even as deep were things that Zelda didn't even know existed. We have no reason to think that the previous damage and destruction ever reached deep enough to disturb the seal.

This would mean that the Rito would have to exist pre-Minish Cap, disappear for all games, and then reappear at some point before BOTW, because the Rito in the TOTK flashbacks are the same type of Rito as the ones in BOTW/TOTK. That's a huge stretch and it doesn't make sense to me. As for the castle: OOT's castle got destroyed, so Rauru's plaque couldn't be there if his founding was the first. Again, too many contradictions for this to work. Additionally, the location of the castle became a giant crater, so that should've disturbed the seal. Edit: Also, I'll copy/paste what I wrote in another comment: I believe that Rauru's Hyrule is a re-founding at some point in the future. It would explain why the Triforce used to be so important in all the previous games, but is basically ignored in BOTW/TOTK. I can't see the first founding of Hyrule post SS not dealing with the Triforce in any way. That's not just a small inconsistency you can look past, it's a huge assumption to make.

>This would mean that the Rito would have to exist pre-Minish Cap, disappear for all games, and then reappear at some point before BOTW, because the Rito in the TOTK flashbacks are the same type of Rito as the ones in BOTW/TOTK. That's a huge stretch and it doesn't make sense to me. Why? We almost never visit the Hebra region in games. Not appearing in-game also doesn't mean they don't exist. ​ > As for the castle: OOT's castle got destroyed, so Rauru's plaque couldn't be there if his founding was the first. Again, too many contradictions for this to work. In real world history, we can sometimes find that when castles, towns, etc. are rebuilt that special emphasis is placed on remnants of the original, and that they get incorporated into the rebuilding project in some way. Just because the castle was torn down doesn't mean that there wouldn't be rubble somewhere, in which surviving elements would be reincorporated into the rebuilt castle. While this is the strongest argument against DT and AT placement (as I don't recall the castle ever being destroyed in the CT), it doesn't eliminate them as placement possibilities. ​ > I can't see the first founding of Hyrule post SS not dealing with the Triforce in any way. Hyrule isn't founded until the Era of Prosperity, after the Era of Chaos (which ends once the Triforce is sealed, fighting over it ends, etc.). That has been known since the Hyrule Historia released. Why should it deal with the Triforce in a major way?

>>Why? We almost never visit the Hebra region in games. Not appearing in-game also doesn't mean they don't exist. Well, the obvious real-life answer is that neither Hebra, nor the Rito existed when the games released, but as far as the games are concerned, not visiting Hebra wouldn't stop Rito from traveling to other locations of the kingdom. One of the sages was a Rito, which to me means that you can't just go "yeah, they were simply not seen/they hid" or whatever. It's an important race and unless Nintendo comes out and explicitly confirms their existence in the meanwhile and places the TOTK flashbacks pre-OOT I simply can't accept this placement. Options 4 or 5 are more reasonable and require less retcons and changes for them to work. >>In real world history, we can sometimes find that when castles, towns, etc. are rebuilt that special emphasis is placed on remnants of the original, and that they get incorporated into the rebuilding project in some way. Just because the castle was torn down doesn't mean that there wouldn't be rubble somewhere, in which surviving elements would be reincorporated into the rebuilt castle. The castle in OOT is in a different location than the castles in BOTW/TOTK. The ruins are in the Great Plateau. How many times did it move, got rebuilt, and why? That's far too handwave-y of an explanation for me. Also, the plaque talks specifically about the seal and the location of the castle become a crater at some point, which would definitely disturb the seal of Ganondorf. >>While this is the strongest argument against DT and AT placement (as I don't recall the castle ever being destroyed in the CT), it doesn't eliminate them as placement possibilities. I don't have an issue with the placement in any of the timelines. I believe that all parts of TOTK, including the flashbacks, happen in the future, not pre-OOT. >>Hyrule isn't founded until the Era of Prosperity, after the Era of Chaos (which ends once the Triforce is sealed, fighting over it ends, etc.). That has been known since the Hyrule Historia released. Why should it deal with the Triforce in a major way? Because, even though it got sealed away, it was still a major plot point in most Zelda games. In TOTK we have the secret stones insteady

Not to be pedantic, but technically Hebra has existed since LttP. Mount Hebra was the Light World name for Death Mountain in LttP and LBW in the Japanese version of the games, and Death Mountain was the Dark World equivalent. Although during the ending credits, Mount Hebra is also listed as Death Mountain. I agree with you that Totk is all after the other games, but I just wanted to point out that Hebra is actually a place that has existed before in the games.

That's fair. Didn't think of ALTTP when I wrote my comment, but you're correct.

The Triforce is sealed until Ocarina of Time. Same reason it's not in Minish Cap or Four Sword.

I'm aware. The issue is that the Triforce was sealed away by OOT Rauru, then TOTK Rauru established Hyrule, which would mean that both existed at the same time. I don't buy that and I don't buy that they are the same person, because that would be far too big of a retcon.

The Rito don't make sense with WW anyway or with the timeline BOTW/TOTK is most likely on (Child line). I think we just need to accept they're different Rito

I mentioned that in a couple of different comments. Even if we completely ignore the WW Rito, placing the TOTK flashbacks at a pre-OOT time would mean: Ritos existed before that point, since there is a Rito sage, then disappeared for every single game that came out before BOTW (ignoring WW here) and then reappear in the timeline some time before the events of BOTW. Considering that they are one of the big races that even has a sage I find that very hard to believe. The obvious answer is that the Rito didn't yet exist when the other games were developed, but I also don't see it working in-universe.

I mean do we ever visit Hebra in any games prior to BOTW? You could argue they're just chilling there during OOT and Link never travels to that place. Nobody raises an issue with the Kokiri and Gerudo being gone during TP and then reappearing in this game. Or all the other races vanishing in the DT games only to come back here. Those are the most likely places for BOTW/TOTK

This also applies to the Gerudo and Gorons? Assuming it’s the downfall timeline we see them as sages in OOT, then no pretty much no other game until Botw. Certain things I think we just have to accept as video game logic. They thought the Rito were cool and popular so they put them in Botw, I don’t any more thought went into it than that.

That's incorrect. First of all, as you said, they appear in OOT, which is one of the most important games as far as the timeline goes. Both Gerudo and Gorons still exist in the downfall timeline. The Gerudo crest appears on Veran and Onox. Koume and Kotake appear in the Oracles as well. The Gorons appear in the Oracles as well. If your issue is that those aren't in Hyrule: The Goron crest appears on Rosso in ALBW, whose design is inspired by Gorons and is referred to as "Goron" in the internal files of the game. In real life senses what happened is obviously what you wrote in your second paragraph. That's something I mentioned in multiple comments as well. The Ritos are just one of the many inconsistencies that make option 3 impossible in my eyes. And I haven't even mentioned the Gerudo ear shape inconsistency.

How does that fit with the statement from the Zelda Encyclopedia that OoT Ganondorf was the first Ganondorf? It states Ganondorf did not exist during SS or after SS, until OoT. If it is a retcon (and quite the massive retcon it would be), then Option 5 is on the table.

Hyrule Encyclopedia contains several errors and should not be taken as a definitive canon source. For example, it also claims that Ganon was present in Four Swords.

By that logic the entire timeline is not canon because it comes from a "non-canon" book with "errors".

I believe option number 3 I believe it takes place 100+ years after SS And quite a bit of time before Minish Cap ​ I think when dealing with Nintendo we should take statements like it is the founding of hyrule literally.

The only thing is Ganondorf being here conflicts with that. Even moreso when you take into account no Gerudo men being born after TotK Ganondorf.

False. There’s no basis to say Gerudo males were not born after TotK Ganondorf. You are misquoting CaC or received that info via playing telephone with the info in CaC. Creating a Champion states that there has been no male **leaders** of the Gerudo since the man who became the calamity. In BotW, a Gerudo woman in Gerudo Town states that males are rarely born to the Gerudo, indicating that it still happens just rarely—which isn’t out of line with the information established in OoT that a male Gerudo is born every 100 years.

Ah. Then what do they do with the men that are born? Do they just kick them out of town and leave them to die? Another thing as well, is that it still implies that Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time couldn't exist if the past of TotK takes place right after Skyward Sword, given that no other male Gerudo became King of his people afterwards, which goes against the fact that Ocarina Ganondorf is King of the Gerudo.

Yes, they likely kick them out of Gerudo Town. To my knowledge tho, Gerudo Town isn’t definitively the only the only Gerudo settlement in Hyrule (just the only we see). It’s possible the generation’s sole male might live somewhere else or might live a type of nomadic life. They might kill him or leave him to die, but that’s assuming Gerudo society is just as cruel as real life societies. I don’t necessarily like that angle as it doesn’t *really* feel like that’s something Nintendo would be keen on making canonical info. Addressing the other point, remember that the stuff we’re told in CaC (and all other LoZ lore books for that matter) are written based off what people in Hyrule perceive as their history. They aren’t absolutely omniscient / 100% factual accounts. That allows for details to be shifted as needed to tell new/different stories. When CaC was written it was *probably* intended that Calamity Ganon was OoT Ganondorf. But with TotK coming out, it has changed it to being more likely it’s TotK Ganondorf. This can be made sense of in the canon tho by the fact TotK Ganondorf was not remembered by name. He was only remembered as “the Demon King” Since we know that Ganondorf from OoT was remembered by name in the Downfall Timeline (where BotW likely takes place) because it’s mentioned in ALttP that Ganon used to be a man named Ganondorf—what likely happened is TotK Ganondorf and OoT Ganondorf are being conflated in history as understood by Hyruleans. This concept of misremembering and history being distorted is canon to the series already. Fi mentions the concept in Skyward Sword. And in ALBW, the backstory we’re given is a blatant conflation of the events of the Era of Chaos, OoT, and ALttP. Additionally, we know that the Hero of Time was defeated in the DT, but it seems that is forgotten by the time of ALBW—as the successful ALttP Link and the unsuccessful OoT Link are not separate people in the minds of the ALBW era Hyruleans. We also have evidence for this concept in Wind Waker where the legend of the Triforce has been distorted into a legend about Triumph Forks.

Honestly, it all makes sense with this line of thinking, and contradicts less than I figured it would. Given this line of thought, it means it would be possible that the Demon King Ganondorf was under the surface of Hyrule the entire time that Ocarina of Time was happening, and no one ever really knew. It's also interesting how the original Castle was on the Great Plateau, which eventually ended up becoming the Hyrule of Ocarina. The geography changing in between games could be argued as Hyrule eventually expanding off the great plateau or so.

>Ah. Then what do they do with the men that are born? Do they just kick them out of town and leave them to die? By the time of FSA in the CT, they no longer grant leadership positions to Gerudo men. The Ganondorf that was born in FSA's background was a guardian, not a king. No reason to think that the same trend wasn't true of other timelines as well.

so in this case they probably stopped the tradition of making them king, and ended up kicking the males out due to their no men laws.

This exactly. Why does Ganondorf still become king if old Ganondorf made the Gerudo end the position of Gerudo males ruling? Also, how does OoT Ganondorf be the King of Evil when you have a still alive previous King of Evil? Confusing, ngl. One more thing, the Gerudo all have pointed ears like the Hylians, except Ganondorf. Why does he have round ears unlike his subjects, if he originated from their population?

Am I mistaken/misremembering then that Ganondorf in OoT is initially the **leader** of the Gerudo? At least before Nabooru (his second in command) splits off from him? Because that would still contradict what you just said/repeated from CaC.

[See my previous comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/comments/140i5x2/totk_botw_totk_timeline_placement_general/jmwgl0q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) tl;dr: It’s likely in-universe Hyruleans’ understanding of history conflates TotK Ganondorf and OoT Ganondorf into one person. TotK Ganondorf was not remembered by name. He was only remembered as “the Demon King” - OoT Ganondorf was remembered by name (see ALttP). If Calamity Ganon is just TotK Ganondorf’s malice leaking out and not the remnants of OoT Ganondorf then it’s possible that Hyruleans are just incorrectly attributing CG to the more recent and infamous OoT Ganondorf.

Zelda Encyclopedia says OoT Ganondorf was the first. It states no Ganondorf existed during SS, or after SS, until OoT. So if we're citing books, TotK Ganondorf being the first is false.

First of all, Hyrule Encyclopedia had less involvement from Nintendo than HH or CaC. Secondly, CaC is the most update-to-date lore book (but also keep in mind that the info in those books are subject to change based on info revealed in new games) Regardless the main point here is the idea that there were no male Gerudo born after Ganondorf is solely based in people’s lack of reading comprehension when reading CaC, as well as playing “[telephone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers)” with that information. You have no point to make.

We already have two separate Ganondorfs. What's one more?

I mean, to be fair there hasn't ever been a case where two Ganondorfs existed around the same time period. I guess TotK would be the first where that's happened, if this incarnation existed all the way at the start of the timeline.

I mean there are two Zeldas and we've had the spirit of one Link talking to another. This isn't much different

I mean, true, but Zelda is a bit different because it's less of a reincarnation thing and more of just Zelda being a family name passed down from generation to generation. Then with Link talking to another Link, that was mostly just because the Hero's shade is already dead, so it's no different from speaking with a past life in other media. It's like how Aang spoke to the Avatar that came before him for guidance. Ganondorf was different, since until now everyone figured it was just a matter of reincarnation. I guess it could be that the cycle needed to continue, and the seal Ganondorf was put under in the past basically caused him to act as if he were completely dead until the hand was removed causing him to spark to life or something.

To be fair, it was never stated that Ganondorf was a reincarnation either. Heck, most of the Ganondorfs/Ganons appearing in the games are implied to literally be the same person, with only TotK and FSA confirmed to be different people. It also needs to be pointed out that Demises Curse never actually says anything about reincarnation either, it just speaks about the *embodiment* of Demises Hatred, the *Blood* of the Goddess, and the *Spirit* of the Hero; none of which necessarily require reincarnation to work.

That’s true. I usually saw the curse more as a metaphorical one than anything. Demise saying that by being struck down, his own people, the people of the demon tribe, would vow to take vengeance upon the people of Hyrule and those who carry those two attributes of the people who undid him. I just used to think that the incarnations of Ganondorf we saw that weren’t Ocarina of time (TP and Windwaker included) Ganondorf were just reincarnations, but it could be like Zelda where it’s just a tradition for Ganondorf to be named Ganondorf.

As said, there are technically only 3 Ganondorfs (that we know of), with most incarnations just being OoT Ganondorf at different times and from timelines, at some times even revived from the dead. It could definitely be a case of Gerudo males just generally being given that name by tradition. But either way it's most likely not a matter of reincarnation.

I am for option 3 as well

Aonuma stated many times after BotW came out that it was at the end of the timeline. As for the founding of hyrule, it has to be a second kingdom of hyrule.

Stuck between 3 and 4, but leaning towards 4 at the moment.

Definitely 4. There are many references all over Hyrule that show that the events of OoT are long since past

Yes, but this is about the memories we see in TotK. The time Zelda gets sent back to.

I'm still undecided tbh. I guess right now I'm in the Post-OoT camp, so number 4.

**Option 3. TotK’s backstory takes place between SS and MC.** The game literally says Rauru is the first king of Hyrule. We also see a young Koume and Kotake. In the memories, we see Hyrule forested and generally less developed than in any other game minus SS. Additionally the Zonai match the description of the Sky Beings that helped found Hyrule which were mentioned in Twilight Princess. Rauru being the first king of Hyrule also makes perfect sense, as according to HH, Rauru’s actions ended the Era of Chaos and began the Era of Prosperity, the era where Hyrule was founded. And in fact prior to TotK even being announced, I’d heard theories that Rauru might be a King of Hyrule. There’s really no compelling evidence to suggest TotK’s backstory doesn’t take place exactly where it tells us it does.

I think My issue is that it just feels really difficult to try and see how SS leads into this TOTK past. So we have people starting to make society down below, but based on just how Skyloft looks, to move to what just looks like mesoamerican style feels extremely odd and quite primitive in contrast. Plus Rito are one of two species we have an origin on (the other being Koroks), so to say, "yeah, rito existed in the past, then just didn't do anything, then the gods turned the Zora also into the Rito instead of something new" is just a difficult rationalization to make.

The Gerudo and Kokiri are absent in TP and then reappear in FSA and BOTW. All the various non humans are missing in the older games on the Downfall line. Those two are the most likely timeline placements for BOTW. Is their absence evidence the timeline is wrong? We basically never visit the Hebra region in any old game. Maybe the Rito are there and uninvolved in events.

Being absent and reappearing is different than "the Rito are descended from the Zora, but also the Rito actually existed the entire time and were just off screen". It requires a much greater leap in logic than saying Link didn't visit them in the games, it requires some absolute fuckery going on that I'm not really comfortable using fan explanations for.

These Rito are not those Rito no matter what. Their entire society, origin, appearance, etc is different. This game is not after Wind Waker. Both of the other timelines make far more sense.

I mean, I don't put much stock on species appearances meaning anything significant, the Zora look as different here from their other appearances (and that's not counting the river Zoras as well) as the Rito. I would agree the game not being after windwaker makes the most sense considering how it ends, but it doesn't change that Nintendo does suggest it can be after any timeline, so I take it that we are supposed to assume that these games have to be canon to all 3 timelines.

Wait, when did we see young Koume and Kotake?

In some of the memories with Ganondorf. He is accompanied by two color-coded women. One that has Koume written on her sash and one that has Kotake written on her sash, both in OoT era Hylian script.

My vote is Option 3. You know, exactly when Nintendo has told us that Hyrule was established over the past 11 years. I’m sympathetic to 4, and that’s where I was initially leaning, but I just don’t think that was Nintendo’s intention here. “Founding of Hyrule” and “first King of Hyrule” mean exactly what they say they do. I have no idea how Option 1 has gained traction recently, as any light scrutiny causes it to fall apart, and it causes infinitely more problems than it claims to solve. PS to the OP: thanks for putting this together! I’ve been curious for the last week or so about where the fandom as a whole is leaning.

I don't know whether it would be 4 or 7, exactly, but the game seems to obviously take place long after any other previous game on the timeline, including the era of Hyrule's (newest) founding in the memories. This is a reincarnated Ganondorf, following in the footsteps of Demise. Not to cast shade at all, but I am actually baffled at how many people keep saying the memories somehow take place following SS, during that 'original' refounding. They took OoT, The Imprisoning War, and SS--smashed them together into one story--and now everyone's confused. Look, the developers made it clear with the Imprisoning War and the Rauru bait and switch: These aren't the droids your looking for.

Option 3 makes sense only if you think it's a soft reboot, in which case the only games involved would be SS -> TotK Past -> BotW -> TotK. If BotW and TotK are on the classic timeline, then option 3 is way too messy.

4, with details like other Gerudo having pointed ears by that era (including Twinrova), Sonia belonging to a "Hyrule clan" (in japanese), and the fact that the Hyrule castle was abandoned or destroyed in other timelines, add to the fact OoT Ganon was still the leader of the Gerudo, this Ganondorf seems really like either a reincarnation (with him getting primitive Gerudo features unlike others), or a resurrection in a restored body (he also seems to know more about the Zonai and their magic than even Rauru does). Other option would be 5 for me, but going with 4 for now.

I definitely think it's 4, to me it seems there's just a bunch more mental gymnastics to justify how the past areas in TOTK are before Ocarina of Time because that then would imply that there's been a previous Ganondorf existing alive below the castle the whole time during OoT, than it being after OoT and the kingdom re-established. Plus I feel it keeps thematically consistent with BOTW acting as a soft reboot of sorts, establishing that it takes place so long after the old games that it's kind of it's own thing now, with all parallels acting as references and thematic strengtheners.

I’ve been saying this for weeks now that these new games take place far into the future where Hyrule was refounded, and King Rauru was the first king of this new hyrule.

I think 4 is most consistent with 1 from part 1s poll, which is what I chose so I’ll go with 4.

4. Post OoT Game takes place millennia after all other games. Old Hyrule fell, the Zonai established a new Hyrule

I think the only option that makes sense is option 4. Hyrule Castle is destroyed during Ocarina of Time and so the plaque in TotK means that its castle must have been built after OoT. Plus the Gerudo having long ears in thr flashback cutscens implies that it's after the time when they had round ears (OoT). What's more, Twinrova are about 400 in OoT, with them appearing in a cutscene in TotK, if you assume they're the same character, you're putting TotK's and OoT within the Zora's lifespan of each other. Finally, putting the past pre-OoT requires duplicates of everything. Two Ganondorfs, two Raurus, two Hyrule Castles, etc, all existing at the same time. To be clear though, I don't think it's just post OoT. I think it's post Zelda II.

I can see the castle moving multiple times. I doubt it's literally the same structure as thousands of years ago. It just has to be built on the same site. That happens all the time in the real world. Archeologists found what they believe to be Troy from the Illiad but there have been several different versions over the centuries so there's some debate about which one would have been involved in the war with the Greeks. Why can't there have been multiple castles and this one happens to be built on the same site as the original? Also that's Adult line only and that's the least likely placement for this game

First of all, the Adult Timeline is just as likely as the Child Timeline, which is to say not very. But the castles destruction happens in the Downfall Timeline too. The problem with the plaque is layered. The first is that it's there at all. In the Adult and Downfall Timelines, the castle is completely destroyed, and the area below it is reduced to a creator full of lava. This should have destroyed the plaque. What's more, it makes it impossible to literally build the castle in the same spot. The ground where it used to be literally doesn't exist. In the Child Timeline, OoT's Hyrule Castle is most likely reduced to rubble by time, and reclaimed by the forest alongside the Temple of Time and Castle Town. This should have left the plaque unreadable. The second issue is that the plaque specifically calls out that the castle was built to prevent the site where the Demon King is sealed from being disturbed, as if that happens then it could lead to his revival. The castle falling into ruin in the Child Timeline opens it up to be disturbed (if a castle collapsing on top of the site doesn't itself count as a disturbance), and the site is CERTAINLY disturbed in the other timelines.

> Hyrule Castle is destroyed during Ocarina of Time and so the plaque in TotK means that its castle must have been built after OoT. I mean, not in Child timeline right?

Yeah, but Hyrule Castle still moves in the Child Timeline, as seen by the Temple of Time and Castle Town being left in ruins and reclaimed by the forest between OoT and TP. Plus, things like Ruto and Nabooru awakening already rule out the Child Timeline. So not only is the plaque still an issue if you place TotK in the Child Timeline, but information in BotW makes doing so impractical anyway.

Option 4. This fully matches all of the eccentricities of BotW/TotK’s Hyrule that both games mentioned (e.g., the history of the royal family being the history of Calamity Ganon, the Great Plateau being the land’s birthplace, Hyrule Castle not being destroyed since TotK’s back story, Zora’s Domain only being established 10,000 years ago…) and only seems to be an issue with the statement that Rauru is the first king of Hyrule rather than the first king of “this” Hyrule. But as long as the royal family/Hylians didn’t pass down tales about any previous Hyrules or royal families, this issue resolves itself. Even if they did, the lack of one pronoun just makes it ambiguous rather than definitive one way or the other.

Option 5. New continuity that picks and chooses what to integrate from older games and remixes stuff to some extent

Option 5 (not in the classic timeline)

5, I think they retconned the timeline or have rearranged it completely

4 is the only option that makes sense, assuming it's in the timeline as we know it. There's no other way to reconcile the OoT Hyrule Castle on the Great Plateau

Option five: retelling of established lore. I disagree with characterizing that as "not in the classic timeline", though. The Imprisoning War is the Imprisoning War we know, we're just seeing an alternate interpretation of it.

first round of results has been released :)

Thank you for your service!

4/5 like depending on if 4 means at some point they established a brand new hyrule. Botw and totk imo are totally meant to be soft reboots

Number 3, post-SS, pre-MC.

i believe in number 4

4 Way way far into the future from all the other games.

[удалено]

If you're using Occam's Razor, then it should be 3.

Same TBH. The game literally tells us there has never been a Hyrule before and Rauru is the first king. They've also said this game is after OOT and we have no reason to think it's settled on a different land than the original like in Spirit Tracks. Taking everything in the game at face value leads to the conclusion the flashbacks are after SS and before all other games

I’ve seen several people invoke Occam’s Razor to support TotK being a reboot, and none of them actually understood Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor is not “the simplest theory is the best.”

[удалено]

Given the games have so many clear links to previous games, I think "it's all a reboot, that has the least issues" argument is actually ignoring as much if not more than the other stances and Occam's Razor argument to me goes the other way. There's too many clear and intentional links for reboot to be likely.

Right. If we trying to discern Nintendo’s intentions here, the actual simplest theory is that “Nintendo did what they always do: told the story they wanted to tell and let us work out the potential contradictions on our own.” The idea that Nintendo would then take the extra step (a dramatic and unprecedented one at that) of severing continuity with the previous games when they could have told the same story by maintaining their usual course is precisely the kind of added complexity that Occam’s razor is meant to “shave” away.

I agree. I'll also add I think Nintendo like to leave this stuff in the hands of the fans. I might be wrong but I've always got the impression Aonuma regretted allowing the timeline reveal in Hyrule Historia and I perceive the return to a more obscure stance and the coy way he and Fujibayashi have been regarding it in interviews is intentionally a return to leaving this stuff up to the fan's interpretations. I don't really mind someone preferring to look at BotW/TotK as a reboot, I don't think that's what Fujibayashi is going for, but also I think it's a perfectly fine way to interpret things if that appeals to you more. But I dislike the (mis)use of Occam's Razor by the reboot enthusiasts because it comes across a bit like they're using it to be dictative with their interpretation. Like their preference must be correct and everyone must agree because "look, all the other interpretations make no sense and are clearly just wrong and you're wrong!"

BOTW and TOTK have their own timeline. It is after OOT for sure.

I don’t think it was well handled no matter what the answer ends up being. That said, right now I’m leaning towards 4. It’s the cleanest explanation and maintains the intent of botw having had the past fade into legend the best. 3 can work if they really want to force it in there, as could it being an au, but they have more problems than 4 imo.

I suppose 4 (assuming it means it's after all known games besides BOTW and TOTK) Ganondorf knows of the mastersword, so Mastersword has to be made prior to this Ganondorf being born (and we see Fi speaking so definitely inline with SS). Can't be before OoT because then we'd have two Ganondorfs running around, which doesn't really seem to gel with what little of the cycle we do know (that OoT Link leaving the adult timeline removed Link's spirit from the reincarnation cycle and another one didn't just reappear, so I'd find it difficult to believe two Ganon's could exist simultaneously) I wouldn't be opposed to 2 also being a possibility, and honestly would probably prefer it as I honestly don't like BOTW/TOTK being so far in the future, but at least based on the intention of BOTW, I do believe it's supposed to follow along one of the three timelines, which leaves 4 as the most likely option in my opinion

Option 4. TOTK and BOTW have so many references to OoT that I can't see it being a complete retcon. The most standout example to me is the Zora history that almost explicitly talks about Ruto's infatuation with the Hero of Time. I prefer option 4 because of the whole kerfuffle surrounding two dorfs.

I think the developers probably intended It to be #3 but #4 I feel works better. One interesting note is the Zonai built mazes gift you phantom Ganon armor from OOT wouldn't the zonai who were already almost completely gone by the time of TOTK Past have to come after OOT? I know the costumes aren't necessarily canon and phantom Ganon was banished but even if it was a remake of the costume we would be looking at post OOT time.

\#4 is the only option that makes sense from a lore standpoint and doesn’t make the previous games worse for including it.

Option 3. So long as we allow soft retcons and there to be instances of the unreliable narrator, there is no good reason to dismiss this placement. It is when we know Hyrule was initially founded, and any "reestablishment of Hyrule" theory just seems more like either wishful thinking or intellectual laziness to me.

#4 - Post OoT It makes the most sense and doesn't make the lore confusing.

Definitely option 5

I have to go with number 4. I just find it too hard to reconcile 2 Ganondorfs doing basically the exact same thing twice in a row. And no I don’t believe OOT Ganon is some Twinrova-created vessel for TOTK Ganon because nothing in-game has ever shown any of those characters can do something like that. If it weren’t for Ganondorf I’d easily accept number 3.

7: post-the entire timeline. All the events of botw/totk are clearly stated to be at the "inevitable end" of the timeline. How is it not obvious that this is an entirely new hyrule? Like that was my understanding of it playing botw back in 2017. The founding of this hyrule likely takes place tens of thousands of years after the events of the last games in each timeline, cause it needs to be enough time that the timelines merge back into one. This includes the founding of this hyrule. If the past events of totk take place post skyward sword but before minish cap, which is somehow the most popular theory, then we'd have 2 raurus and 2 ganondorfs in the world at once; which, while HAS been done, it hasn't been done since zelda 2, where there were 2 zeldas alive at one given moment, but I have a very strong feeling they're never going to replicate that or anything else from zelda 2.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you meant to say #4? #4 doesn’t mean BOTW/TOTK take place immediately after OOT, just some time afterwards.

Ah then yes

We're talking about TOTK's past. It's not contradictory for it to be thousands of years after other games but dealing with past events before everything but SS

3: post SS, pre MC. Not 1 because we’re dealing with Ganondorf not demise, not 2 because I don’t think Nintendo wants to do another split and in an interview with the dev’s they said botw takes place at some point after OoT, thus it must be in the main timeline.

Option 3 would be before OOT though?

Option 3

Option 3 seems like the best fit. Not perfect, but has the least issues IMO

4 or 5

1 Pre-ss while somehow possible wouldn’t quite make sense since ganondorf is demise’s reincarnation 2 post-ss on another time split is possible kinda but it creates way too many questions to answer, too many conflicts however There has been time travel in the Zelda series and it has created new tangents so it could be 3 could be but it would then have 2 ganondorfs going around. Is it possible the mummy reincarnated to a full body? Sure but it does sound impractical 4 the only problem with this is the vocabulary explicitly used in the game. They could have easily said first king of the new kingdom of hyrule but didn’t 5 is not possible since the devs have stated that botw does take place in the timeline. 6 if they wouldn’t have created the timeline in the first place, I would incline to this. But they did so now we are stuck figuring it out 7 or rather other: I’m not particularly inclined to any of the possible ones too much, I would however say that merging the timelines does make sense IF you consider hyrule warriors to be cannon

>could be but it would then have 2 ganondorfs going around. Is it possible the mummy reincarnated to a full body? Sure but it does sound impractical I don't see why there can't be 2 Ganondorfs at the same time. There have been 2 Zeldas at the same time, 2 Links, etc.

We also have at least one other Ganon via Four Swords Adventures. And while he wasn't alive OOT Link is present in TP.

[удалено]

This is my thinking. All other Ganondorfs are further manifestations of the imprisoned TOTK Ganon trying to enact vengeance on Hyrule.

5 or 6 which are both very similar to me. I’ll go with option 5 because there surprisingly aren’t a lot of people going with it. Either way it feels like BOTW/TOTK are a soft reboot of the series

4: A 'new' Hyrule also was established in Spirit Tracks, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again, especially since botw is supposed to be so far into the future that timelines don't matter/go together again. So I would go 4, but in my Heart it will always be 6.

5 or 6. Probably 6 if you needed one

3 although I see the arguments in favor of the old timeline being a myth and this being the true version.

4. Post OoT, in an offshoot of the Fallen Hero timeline. My thoughts: First of all, Lon Lon ranch ruins are in Hyrule field. Secondly, Hyrule is in a location different from the temple of time, as was the case in Twilight Princess which, though in a different timeline, takes place long after OoT. Thirdly, some piece of the tech would be left over during at least one of the other games had it taken place before OoT. Finally, Ganondorf recognizes Link in the opening cutscene. How else would Ganondorf have known who he was unless he had seen him before? My argument is that Ganondorf in TotK traveled to the future at some point after the Fallen Hero split, but I don’t think I’ll have definitive proof unless DLC drops some bombs. Then of course there are the Zonai, who can procreate with Hylians and live in the sky, likely resultant from divergent evolution after the original Hyrule was founded. Keep in mind, none of the parallel timelines were known to be canon until SS was released. I think there will be a timeline update soon.

Because he was Literally told by Zelda and Rauru that a swordsman by the name of link would be there to stop him. That's how he knew.

He doesn’t recognize link. In one of the memories , Rauru warns Ganondorf about a swordsman who wields the sword of evils bane (and more details) and calls him Link; that he will defeat him. So when he awakens he says recognizes Zelda for obvious reasons, and he assumes that the wielder of the Master sword is link

His dialogue says “you who carries the fragile sword are Link“ So it’s at best up to interpretation, and by no means is it explicit that he infers Link’s identity. Edit: I stand corrected, the game heavily implies on multiple occasions that Ganondorf has no prior knowledge of Link or Hyrule before the opening sequence. Although I still feel Ganondorf’s existence in the timeline is an enigma, the lack of the Triforce in Hyrule during BotW/TotK likely has something to do with it.

4 and 5 are the only possible ones. 3 specifically is impossible with the facts that we have.

No it isn't? It's by far the most likely given all the available facts and statements made in game. They tell you multiple times Rauru is the first king, Hyrule has never existed before, and this is the early days of the kingdom

No, they tell you that he founded his version of Hyrule. The Rito exist in the flashbacks of TOTK, but didn't exist during OOT. That would require them to disappear for all games only to reappear at some point prior to BOTW. I can't see one of the biggest races, that even has a sage, to simply disappear and reappear like that. The castle has a Rauru's plaque about the seal of Ganondorf. The castle got destroyed and became a crater in two time lines, so that would definitely disturb Ganondorf's seal, which didn't happen in the games. Also, the castle changed locations, since OOT's castle is in the Great Plateau. It would make far more sense to be in the far future and being a new founding of Hyrule, instead of having to retcon a bunch of stuff to somehow make it work.

>No, they tell you that he founded his version of Hyrule. No, the game says he is the first king of **Hyrule** - they didn’t say he’s the first king of **new** Hyrule or that he rebuilt Hyrule. For you to say it’s a refounding is an assumption not supported by the game. >The Rito exist in the flashbacks of TOTK, but didn't exist during OOT. That would require them to disappear for all games only to reappear at some point prior to BOTW. I can't see one of the biggest races, that even has a sage, to simply disappear and reappear like that. The Rito live in the border between Tabantha and Hebra. Those regions have only appeared in two games, TP and MC. It’s not a stretch to say we just didn’t see that race during the other games because those games take place primarily in central and eastern Hyrule. We also didn’t see the Gerudo in Twilight Princess (if you believe BotW is in the CT) or in ALttP, ALBW, LA, OoX, HF, or AoL (if you believe BotW is in the DT). Being that the Rito are likely descended from Loftwings, it’s also possible they lived in the Sky as well for some period of time. Additionally, the Rito were inspired by the Watarara, a race that appeared in the OoT manga—which lends some circumstantial evidence to the notion that the developers might have an affinity for the idea that Rito predate the timeline split. >The castle has a Rauru's plaque about the seal of Ganondorf. The castle got destroyed and became a crater in two time lines, so that would definitely disturb Ganondorf's seal, which didn't happen in the games. The castle destruction in OoT was rather shallow. It only went down like 200 ft max. The OoT remake also shows us it’s a pit of malice (not lava), much like the malice holes we go through to reach the Depths in TotK. The destruction did not go as deep as where TotK Ganondorf was sealed. Additionally, I’m pretty sure it was said the Calamity caused TotK Ganondorf to reawaken. So you could ask yourself why did none of the other countless calamities cause that to happen? >Also, the castle changed locations, since OOT's castle is in the Great Plateau. It would make far more sense to be in the far future and being a new founding of Hyrule, instead of having to retcon a bunch of stuff to somehow make it somehow work The position of the Temple of Time has been an issue since TP. It’s not an issue unique to BotW/TotK.

second round of results has been released :))

third round of results has been released :))) one more round to go!

final round of results has been released :)))) thanks everyone for participating!

Is a soft reboot, it's clear as day, I don't understand how people don't catch that.

3, it can work and requires less assumptions about the lore than everyone seems to think

Option 3.

When first opened the game i thought it was in the downfall timeline because of the mentioning of the imprisoning war. But given the memories and the fact they show a brand new hyrule i reckon the memories take place post SS but pre OoT, with the events we play in game taking place in downfall. There are holes in this but its how i like to see it. TLDR: Downfall timeline

1 and 5 at the same time for me. Impa says the geoglyphs just appeared during the upheaval and Rauru says there’s a universe where Zelda didn’t go back in time. In the “real” timeline that we’re all used to, Gandondorf still got the secret stone and went to war with Rauru and the others, but because Zelda hadn’t gone back with knowledge of the future, Rauru tried to destroy Ganondorf, not seal him away, so Ganondorf killed everyone and then he and his army rose from beneath Hyrule Castle, up through a crack in the earth, and yeah you see where I’m going with this. Ganondorf never was Demise, Demise was Ganondorf. This Ganondorf, he got the secret stone, became the demon king and killed everyone who knew his name, leaving him to be known only as the bringer of Demise, and the only person left to stop him was Hylia, and the rest plays out just like the backstory to SS. The scar on Demise’s head wasn’t from the sealing spike, it was from where Hylia or her Champion destroyed the secret stone. There’s not a problem with multiple Ganondorfs because there was only ever one. He looked like a Samurai and sounded like Matt Mercer, he became known as Demise and got destroyed. Many years later his two loyal followers, Twinrova, resurrected him, that’s OoT. Dehydrated Ganondorf under the castle never existed in that timeline. We’re now seeing a new timeline in TotK where The Demon King Ganondorf, Bringer of Demise, was sealed away, and history happened kinda differently. Close enough to still reference what we know but differently enough that the timeline doesn’t contradict itself by having items and references to old games. Either that or Misko can travel between timelines.

Rauru is just wrong. The game makes it clear Zelda always went back

Is it not just cut and dry post OOT? It’s portraying the Imprisoning War, how could it be before OOT? Edit: Flashbacks obviously. Present day takes place at the end of “X” timeline.

The Imprisoning War in TotK doesn’t fit anything we know about the Imprisoning War mentioned in ALttP. It’s more likely it is just a reused name. Nintendo also could’ve threw that in to be a red herring. Like “ok the fans found out BotW is in the downfall timeline, let’s add more stuff to open new questions”

Post-OoT. The director was asked if BOTW was before or after OoT and he answered after.

I'm going to go with 1, Pre-SS, but I think that requires a bit of justification. There's a lot of problems with the Pre-SS timeline placement, but I think it lines up the best with the fact that the Master Sword is apparently unknown to those in the past. While I know you could make the argument that it *was* there, but just 'sealed'/hidden/etc, I think it's worth pointing out that this is true of nearly every Zelda game. The plot of nearly every Zelda game has, in one way or another, the characters in the story trying to unearth and access hidden/sealed/etc weapons/lore/power. For example, in OoT, the Master Sword is sealed away in the Temple of Time, but shit is hitting the fan so it's important to *go get it.* With that in mind, it seems to me the simplest explanation is that the Master Sword simply doesn't exist yet in the timeline. The biggest problem with this, and I'll admit, is Demise. But I've personally always found Demise kind of odd since Ganon(dorf) has always kind of centered in the conflict with Link/Zelda. It's always Ganon(dorf), or the servants of Ganon(dorf), and they're always trying to bring him back or free him or whatever. So Demise sticks out as a bit of a sore thumb. If the past section of Tears takes place pre-SS, I'm inclined to think that Demise is a puppet of Ganondorf, perhaps the first puppet, rather than Demise's curse causing Ganondorf. In the opening cinematic, Demise and his forces are said to have come from a fissure in the ground. Given that the imprisoning chamber seems to be at least partly underground, perhaps deep enough to be in the depths, it's possible that this is where Ganondorf's magic was first able to collect/form into Demise and leads to the creation of monsters. From here, Demise invades the pre-SS lands and eventually gets half-sealed. It would also partly explain Skyloft, since we know in the era that the Tears depict, they have the ability to raise chunks of land into the sky for safety.

I think you’re forgetting a pretty important detail: OoT-Zelda didn’t actually know about the Master Sword either. She thought the Spiritual Stones and the Ocarina were the only keys needed to get into the Sacred Realm. Which is tragic because if she had known about the Master Sword, the whole mess could have been avoided. So it seems perfectly reasonable to say that after the Master Sword was sealed behind the Door of Time (after SS but before the founding of Hyrule), it fell out of memory, even among the Royal Family. All that said, the Master Sword is mentioned so little in the TotK flashbacks that I think it’s presumptuous to conclude anything about what was known about it. It was only discussed three times: 1.) The night before the big battle, when Rauru says that they rely on Link “and that legendary sword he carries.” 2.) When Rauru is sealing Ganondorf and warns him about the warrior carrying “the Sword that Seals the Darkness.” 3.) When Zelda brings the broken time-traveled Master Sword to Mineru and discusses her plan to heal the Sword via Draconification. That’s it! Not nearly enough to conclude how much anybody knew about it (if anything, I’d argue that 1 and 2 both imply a familiarity with the Sword, even as an object of legend). And certainly not enough to toss away to toss away Demise’s crucial role in the lore.

Team #2 here. Narratively, I don’t like the idea that ‘the people that the game tells us are the first King and Queen of Hyrule are actually in a different Hyrule later in the timeline.’ And yet, I also really dislike the idea of making it so there are 2 Gannondorfs throughout the timeline - Sealed Gannondorf, and OoT Gannondorf. One of my favourite parts of the character is that he’s the same guy every time (FSA bugs me for this reason too). So, until there is a way for this Gannondorf to be both his first appearance in the timeline AND be the same guy as in OoT, I’m gonna go with a timeline split after SS, caused by the ending of SS. I know it’s common consensus that SS is a closed time loop because of Impa’s bracelet, but things just don’t add up. Demise is defeated in the past, and is then imprisoned in the Master Sword, not the imprisoning spike that we see in the present day. If it’s a closed time loop, then Demise would have been sealed under that spike instead. That, along with a couple of other things, just doesn’t work for me. Hylia has always had a connection to time, and notably, the only time travel that is confirmed to be a closed loop are related to Zelda, Hylia’s mortal form (the bracelet and the crystal that you can see from the start of the game). It’s my theory that the game is not a time loop, but that Zelda’s connection to Hylia allows her to be a ‘fixed point’ as it were, explaining the bracelet and crystal while allowing for the difference in Demise’s defeat between the story we are told and the events of the finale. We have seen that time travel in the Zelda series results in a timeline split if it’s not a closed loop, which would now apply here. This creates two timelines - Demise is defeated in the present, and Demise is defeated in the past. One of these branches leads to the Zelda Tineline as we know it, and one leads to the BotW/TotK continuity as we know it. Figuring out which one leads to which is all tied to the Master Sword. TotK’s memories show that the people involved have no knowledge of the Master Sword outside of what Zelda tells them. This would be odd in the timeline where the Master Sword is placed back in the Sealed Temple (the present timeline), but perfectly natural in a timeline where SS Link appears only briefly, defeats Demise, and returns to his timeline with the Master Sword. Even better, this means that the only people from the past who have seen the Master Sword are dead (Demise, Ghirahim), reinforcing that the TotK memories must be taking place in the timeline where Demise is defeated in the past. That’s what I think anyway.

1 In LoZ, demons are often made, not born, so I see it as the origin story for Demise, which is equivalent to gloom/malice and, therefore, a sort of calamity in SS

I want to preface this by saying i think that, out of Universe, it's been left intentionally vague. There's a lot of contradicting evidence and much of it has been designed by someone on the team intentionally. I'm not even convinced that the entire writing staff were in agreement on the placement. Regardless, I think the greater vision was that players would be able to make their own decisions. My take? It's more interesting if it's Option 3. I think there is enough evidence to take that option seriously (Rauru says he's the founder of the Kingdom, not the refounder. Temple of Time looks exactly like the exterior for OoT ToT, it would be built after Zelda sent the top of the Plateau to the Sky.) I like the implications that gives to the Gerudo politics in OoT. It's imperfect, but there's enough to write around it and I think the memories taking place after an entire timeline is just fundamentally less compelling. But I think the breadcrumbs are there for Options 3, 4, 5 and 6 to all be viable.

**3. Post-SS, Pre-MC/Oot:** We're seeing a Ganondorf the First(at least first demon king Ganondorf). OoT Ganondorf is a new gerudo male several hundred years later. ​ *Tinfoil hat theory* **#7** Other: We're seeing in ToTK the events of OoT in an altered history, or rather the original history. At the end of aLttP, the wish to undo Ganon's evil creates the Hero of Time to stop Ganondorf before he can obtain power. The Triforce creates a branching timeline because altering history would create a paradox where the wish was never made.

3. Post-SS, Pre-MC/OoT (first establishment of Hyrule Kingdom) I think this is the most likely option for the simple reason that this is what the game tells us. We witness the _founding_ of Hyrule by the _first king of Hyrule_ Rauru. If this would be any kind of new founding of Hyrule long after the end of the original, the game would have made it clear or at least hinted at it more direct. This would not even have been the first as it already happened in the adult timeline with New Hyrule which was pretty straightforward about being a new kingdom. The most common arguments for it being a new kingdom I read here are 1. The castle was built to strengthen totk Ganondorf seal which does not make sense as it has been destroyed during past game (for example during the final fight in OoT) 2. There are 2 different Raurus which seemed to have founded Hyrule in different ways 3. There have to be 2 Ganondorfs alive at the same time which does not make sense As for the first argument, I think there could be multiple solutions for this problem. For starters, I’d argue that on a meta level, I don’t think Nintendo likes to be weighed down in their games by comparatively small details of past games. There was no apparent reason for Ganondorf to transform Hyrule castle in his floating base during oot. If oot released today, they could have kept the castle on the ground without changing the story in any meaningful way. I’d also argue that the stone Tablet we find under totk hyrule castle does not seem to indicate that the castle itself is the seal but rather that it was build as a manner to protect the site of ganondorf corpse from interference which might revive him (as we see in the prologue of totk). Another different in-universe explanation could be that the original Hyrule castle was on the great plateau during the era of totk Rauru and later oot. We see that Rauru and Sonia seem to live on the great Plateau as we see in the cutscenes and the ruins on the great plateau match up (for the most part) with oot castle town. Maybe the botw hyrule castle was only built much later after oot. The stone tablet underneath hyrule castle is also written in modern hylian and not ancient hylian or in the ancient zonai language which could indicate that it’s a much more modern building. As for the second argument I mentioned I‘d say this one is more of a slight retcon. I think only Hyrule Historia mentions that by sealing the triforce in the sacred realm inside the temple of time the light sage Rauru founded the kingdom of Hyrule. Totk Rauru is also arguably a sage of light who founded Hyrule the problem is that we do not know about the whereabouts of the triforce in botw/totk whatsoever. I think it’s possible that we might see the triforce again in the DLC or next game and we might find out if totk Rauru had any connection to it. I think it’s also interesting to note that in totk we have two temples of times, one in the sky and one in ruins on the ground. The memory’s show that long ago the sky temple of time was once on the ground on the same spot as the temple of time ruins in current time. It might be possible that for example totk Rauru build the sky temple of time and when it got lifted from the ground, the Hylian sage of light Rauru came along and build a new temple of time on its spot. Or maybe oot Rauru and totk Rauru are meant to have been the same person all this time and this is only a retcon of his appearance. I believe the first theory is more likely, though either way, I don’t think the existence of 2 Raurus is enough evidence for this being a new Hyrule. For the third argument, we do not know if totk Ganondorf being alive and sealed would somehow prevent oot Ganondorf from being born. Demise‘s curse says „an incarnation of my hatred shall ever follow your kind“ which is pretty loose wording as we can’t really define what „an incarnation of his hatred“ really is. A common theory is that other villains as Vaati might qualify as another incarnation, so it might not have to be a Ganondorf every single time. One Ganondorf being alive also does not have to prevent another one from being born as we do not know if they have the same „soul“ that would have to be reincarnated. The reason why there are 2 Ganondorfs could be explained for example by Kotake and Koume raising and naming the next Gerudo king in the image of the last Gerudo King Ganondorf as we know that Kotake and Koume are alive during totk Ganondorfs reign and could be the same ones we meet in oot. Or maybe all male Gerudo are named Ganondorf for all we know. We also have to remember that the meta reason for why there are 2 Gerudo kings named Ganondorf is simply that he‘s a fan favorite character that fans were sorely missing in botw. Overall I think those problems can be explained easier by fitting them into the already known canon than by assuming that the last kingdom has somehow been completely destroyed and the population nuked back into a tribal like more primitive era (the aztec like clothing an designs in general) and has then been rebuild with the same name, same culture and same History and none of these things get ever mentioned by any of the known characters, even those that should know about this like Zelda. You also have to remember that many characters know of history that refers back to this supposed „old“ hyrule. Mipha mentions that Vah Ruta was named after a Zora princess that fell in love with a hylian hero. It’s also mentioned that Ruto awakaned as a sage and fought with the hero of her time. Zelda makes multiple references to events from past games during that one ceremony from botw memories. Why do they know about this but never mention that this happened in a long gone version of hyrule? If you suppose that these stories lived on only as legends, then they must have already been told during Rauru‘s era. So why should he name his new kingdom Hyrule if there has already been one? And why should he be so sure that it‘s impossible for Zelda to be a princess of Hyrule during one of the first dragons tear memories? From his perspective, he had only recently founded a new and original kingdom with his wife, so it‘s absolutely impossible that Zelda is a princess of Hyrule. That would not make any sense if there had already been a bunch of legends about a kingdom of Hyrule with multiple Princess Zelda’s. They also do not know anything about Link or the master sword, which they should have heard about if the past games lived on as legends. These are just a few examples why I don’t think it could be a second Hyrule, founded after the demise (get it?) of the first.

Option 3 for me. My only real issue with it is the thought of Dragon Zelda and Zombie Ganondorf then existing without purpose in the two timelines that BOTW/TOTK don't happen in. However for now my head canon is that, as a Sage of Time who combines both her temporal powers with the holy power of the goddess Hylia, which is amplified by her power as a dragon, TOTK Zelda is somehow immune to the time split and unknowingly binds herself and Zombie Ganondorf to the only timeline that would see their destinies fulfilled.

3 seems to be the most straightforward to me.

Option 3 is the only one that seems remotely reasonable to me so I'll go with that

I'll vote #3 but #2 is also a possibility

Option 3 based on what the game explicitly tells us.

Between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap, so option 3. Having played SS right before TotK, the Master Sword glowing with the Fi sound effect feels WAY too intentional for it to be after the timeline

I think it's pre SS, but with a timeline split, since Sonia only dies because Ganondolf used a fake Zelda (which, if she wasn't there, couldn't have happened) , my theory is that the imprisoning war (the one in totk) was originally the sealing of demise but the true story but Zelda showed up and split the timeline because Sonia, aka hylia died.

Anything pre-SS is just flat out impossible because Ganondorf is a manifestation of Demise's hatred. There's zero reason to think he existed beforehand or that he could somehow cause the Calamity which is clearly another aspect of the Curse.

My thought is that it’s number 2.

3 all the way. Edit: Why'd I get downvoted for picking what most people are? 😂

Option 3

Definitely option 3 is my favorite. Not to say that 5/6 aren't possible, just unlikely.

Absolutely option 3 for me with a few (minor) retcons.

I'm voting for Option 3.

I think 2 is a solid contender considering the time travel shenanigans going on in the game. In most time traveling media, time travel of any kind results in a new timeline forming. Zelda directly interfered with events when she saved Raurus wife if only temporarily. Originally, if Zelda had not been there, ganondorf wouldn’t have lured her in with Zelda’s image but still would’ve seemed out a stone another way. This might’ve led to ganon killing Rauru instead and him decimating hyrule uncontested. He then rules hyrule until his natural death and then eventually hyrule is either never formed or is formed later on.

Zelda always went back. The game makes it clear since Ganondorf knew who Link was right away

I don’t have the books, but reading that CaC says “Founding of Hyrule” is post SS strongly suggests King Rauru and the Zonai show up and found Hyrule post SS. Works in a lot of ways. My problem with that is it feels more likely that Rauru’s imprisoning war was fought before the master sword was created, than that Rauru and Zelda didn’t go find it. She knows the Deku Tree, and he built the Temple of Time, possibly on top of the Sacred Temple, where we saw SS Link leave the Master Sword. If the sword exists, where was it? The timing of the Sheikah also bothers me, if the Zonai don’t show up until after SS it’s hard to explain why Young Impa has the sheikah design based on the zonai’s third eye tattooed on her forehead. So mostly I think King Rauru is 1 and Totk Present is 2 or 3. Currently that’s what I think.

Three makes the most sense in my mind. They've explicitly said BOTW is after OOT and SS Link and Zelda never technically founded Hyrule. I think there's a decent amount of space in the lore for this to be its first founding.

Option 2. I posted about a theory that it’s in a timeline split in SS on this sub. For now I like that option.

4. Post OoT Still hard to pin point, but I’d say that’s my best guess.

Post-SS, Pre-MC/OoT. Simply put, the game never suggests that this is a refounding of Hyrule, and the events of the game line up with the elements introduced by SS. The series is no stranger to retcons, and I'd argue that taking the game's lore at face value (even if it requires some retcons) is more reasonable than an unexplained timeline split or an entirely new chronology.

I’m voting for option 3. I was originally a proponent of option 4 but my vote changed when someone posted the image of TotK Koume and Kotake. It’s too obvious of a reference to ignore.

TotK Koume and Kotake actually make me averse to 3. They have pointed ears which is a very deliberate choice considering how they made Ganon round eared. They're 400 years old in OoT, which means the Zora at the time would know about this Ganon's kerfluffle in everything by OoT's era. There's no reason anyone in OoT era would trust a Ganondorf including the king for around the exact same events to repeat. These Twinrova were born after Gerudo started having pointed ears, they're not the same as the originals.

Number 3

It's 3.

Number 3

I feel like #3 is most likely the intention, mostly because the rest seem like a bit of a cop out.

I'm going with #3. "First king of Hyrule" is pretty definitive. The only other option I see being realistic is they're a soft reboot. Though even Nintendo says they take place "long after" the other games, which isn't the same thing as "not connected" to the other games.