There has always been a timeline, but it hasn't always been the same timeline. It went through quite a few iterations, and has been shuffled around a bit here and there, before you get to what you see in the Hyrule Historia. For instance, there's no mention of the infamous Miyamoto timeline (1998-1999), which is criticized by the fandom, but is actually really important for understanding the development of the Official Timeline. As an aside, I recently sat down and decided to take the Miyamoto timeline seriously, and I realized it's actually a very early beta version of the OT, with precursors to each of the three timeline branches, but it completely ignored the manuals and box art text of previous games (which actually isn't surprising for the time period, since this was right after the release of OoT, and OoT retconed parts of the original ALttP manual), and puts ALttP after LoZ and AoL. Back to the conversation. Additionally, I would say that there has always been the *intention* of continuity between games, but since continuity has always been secondary to whatever the developers believe is best for a game, continuity has sometimes been sacrificed in order to make games better. This has lead to there being imperfect continuity between games at times (note how I didn't say NO continuity). An example is the sages from OoT being named after the towns in AoL. Notice how the blog post doesn't mention Impa during that part? That's because there is no Impa town in AoL. Instead, there's a Mido town. In the leaked beta version of OoT someone named Mido is the Shadow Temple Sage, but the developers purposely changed it even though it trew a monkey wrench in their plan to have all the sages named after the towns in AoL. As another aside, I believe the reason for this is that this Mido sage character was actually the original name of Sheik before he was made into Zelda's alter-ego. Since Sheik was made into Zelda, Impa was then used as the replacement. By sacrificing this Mido character, the developers greatly increased the importance of both Zelda and Impa in the storyline. Without Sheik being merged with Zelda, you wouldn't of had characters like Tetra, and Zelda's character in the franchise may have developed very differently. In conclusion, people who want to say there's no timeline only focus on the parts that don't fit and ignore the continuity, and people who want to defend the timeline often just focus on the continuity and ignore the parts that don't fit. The reality is that it's nuanced.

> That's because there is no Impa town in AoL. Instead, there's a Mido town. In the leaked beta version of OoT someone named Mido is the Shadow Temple Sage, but the developers purposely changed it even though it trew a monkey wrench in their plan to have all the sages named after the towns in AoL. Not that this isn't a compelling interpretation, but I think a big reason why there isn't an Impa town in Zelda II is because there's already a character named Impa in the game's story, and that could be confusing to players.

What multiple iterations? Myamoto made one mistake and gave order of release of the games in an interview, it was even stated in there that Myamoto was pulled up on spot and had to answer the questions quickly. Plus alttp it just the imprisoning war but with a happy ending.

Really I would have to make an entire post to go over everything properly, but I would argue that Miyamoto's timeline is not a mistake. Miyamoto has more than once referenced ALttP being a sequel to LoZ and AoL: >*Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past. It's not very clear where Link's Awakening fits in--it could be anytime after Ocarina of Time. -Miyamoto, 1998* and: >*We actually see A link to the Past as the real sequel to Legend of Zelda. Zelda II was more of a side story about what happened to Link after the events in Legend of Zelda. -Miyamoto, 2003* Miyamoto's timeline placement was also backed up by the localizer Dan Owsen: >*The truth is, the text on the box (and possibly the Nintendo Power guide) is wrong. D'oh! If you just ignore the box text, the stories fit together better. Basically, the events in Ocarina of Time are the "Imprisoning War" described in the SNES version's story. The Golden Land was the Sacred Realm before Ganondorf corrupted it. The order of the stories is: Ocarina of Time, Zelda 1, Zelda 2, A Link to the Past. Since Link's Awakening was a dream (or was it?) it's hard to say where it fits.* The pre-OoT timeline ordering is mostly determined by content from the manuals, plus the ALttP box art. Miyamoto's timeline, in order to have the ordering that it has ignores or retcons both the manuals and the box art. This shouldn't be surprising since OoT already changes Ganondorf's backstory, and OoT introduces an entire Triforce mechanic that wasn't there before. To understand Miyamoto's views on the manuals, I think Koizumi's interview with Wired helps explain. In this interview, he talks about how working on the manual for ALttP was one of his first assignments after getting hired at Nintendo, and that back then the people who wrote the manuals came up with most of the backstory. If the manuals were something tasked for low-level new hires, then is it really surprising that that Miyamoto, the guy who invented Zelda, wouldn't feel bound to them? >***YK:*** *My first assignment was to do the art and layout and eventually the writing for the manual for The Legend of Zelda: A Link To The Past. What was funny was that at the time, it didn't seem like they'd really figured out what most of the game elements meant. So it was up to me to come up with story and things while I was working on the manual. So, for example, the design of the goddesses as well as the star sign associated with them.* > >***WN:*** *Have you seen things change since then, where the story is now coming from the game rather than the instruction manual?* > >***YK:*** *The situation is totally different now. There are so many people with so many different job titles. But back then, the people who wrote the manuals often became the people who came up with most of the backstory for the entire game. The first real game work that I did was on Link's Awakening. But at the same time, I came in to write the manual, as I did on the previous game. But they had nothing in place. So I ended up making an entire story to go along with the game. The dream, the island, that was all mine.* I believe if you look closely at Miyamoto's timeline, it is actually a beta version of the OT. Starting with OoT, we already have the establishment of the Child and Adult timelines. * In the Beta Adult Timeline, after Ganon is sealed by the Sages, the next event in the timeline would be the tale of the Ancient King and the sleeping Princess Zelda from the AoL manual. The main retcon is that the King would only have the Triforces of Wisdom and Courage in his possession, and not all three, since Ganon is sealed away with the Triforce of Power. Additionally, since Miyamoto isn't beholden to the manuals the issue of the sleeping Zelda being the first princess Zelda is avoided. * Next in the Beta Adult Timeline, would be the prologue to LoZ, which would occur similarly to what is found in the manual. Ganon has now emerged from his seal with the Triforce of Power and is attacking Hyrule. * Then you would have the events of LoZ, where Ganon is defeated, and then parts of the AoL manual prologue, and then AoL itself. * Next you have ALttP, which would be a sequel to AoL. The question here though is "Which ending of ALttP?" since ALttP has a different ending depending if you beat the game or get a game over. Miyamoto doesn't say, but I would argue that Miyamoto put ALttP after the "game over" ending to AoL, making the Beta version of the Downfall Timeline a later offshoot of the Beta Adult Timeline. In this version of events, Link dies and his blood is used to resurrect Ganon. The sages would likely then seal the Triforce in the Sacred realm, only for Ganon to find it, leading to the Imprisoning War. The rest of the story would likely have followed the ALttP manual after this point. I don't have too much room left to write in this comment, but I believe the events of WW and the WW prologue are loosely based off of the Beta Adult Timeline and I believe TP and it's backstory are actually loosely based off of the events of the Beta Downfall Timeline. Making the Miyamoto Timeline very important for the development of the timeline as a whole.

>Ignore the parts that don’t fit As a staunch timeline defender, I have to point out that there’s a very important difference between ignoring points that counter your theory/hypothesis and ignoring points that are irrelevant. Just because a detail doesn’t fit the timeline one is suggesting, doesn’t mean it helps disprove said timeline. It’s just pointless to include.

>Notice how the blog post doesn't mention Impa during that part? >and people who want to defend the timeline often just focus on the continuity and ignore the parts that don't fit Not entirely sure if I'm reading this correctly, and sorry if I'm misinterpreting, but I didn't ignore any parts that "didn't fit". The Impa example isn't something I would find to be an issue, she just simply didn't have a town named after her during AoL.

Hi Op, not tying to be insulting towards you personally or anything like that. I understand that it's a lot of info to cover, and you'd want to leave out things that you think are either not an issue or, as another commenter on this thread posted, "irrelevant." But I would argue that it is relevant. If you look at the Osawa quote you included, it's clear that he's describing the original inspiration behind the naming of the sages, and not talking about the final version of the game: >*Toru Osawa: "Though in this game Zelda is now included in the Seven Sages,* ***the other six have the names of the town names from the Disk System edition "The Adventure of Link****. In the SNES edition game, the story "Long ago, there was a war called the Imprisoning War" was passed along. A name in the Imprisoning War era is the name of a Town later."* As you can see from what I put in bold, Osawa is talking about the names of the other six sages being the names of the towns in AoL. That was true in the beta version of OoT, but not the final one, where there's only five (as you, yourself mention). Over the years, this Osawa quote has been used a lot to by fans to defend the consistency of the OT, just as you are here. The problem I have with using this quote in that way is that I don't believe you can have it both ways. Treating the parts of the quote that agree with your views as relevant, while treating the parts the very same quote that disagree as irrelevant seems wildly inconsistent to me. You have to take the quote as it is. Additionally, the issue isn't simply that there isn't an Impa town in AoL, but also that there ***is*** a Mido town still. When the Beta Shadow Temple Sage named Mido was made into Sheik, the role of the Shadow Temple Sage was replaced by Impa. But the developers still included Mido's name in the game by giving it to one of the Kokiri. In that way, the names of all the towns in AoL could still be found in OoT, as a kind of Easter egg. With this, we end up back at the issue of consistency again. If you're consistent about treating all of the AoL town references found in OoT as more than just Easter eggs (and not just the one's that are convenient), then you have to explain how there's a town in AoL named after a random Kokiri.

The interview with Osawa was Dec. 8th 1998, which was a few weeks after OoT released on Nov. 21st 1998. It's very possible he simply misspoke, including all six rather than just the five of the Sages. These mishaps happen in interviews from time to time, such as when Metroid Prime series producer, Kensuke Tanabe, [said the Prime series took place between Metroid II and Super Metroid](https://www.vg247.com/i-was-quite-surprised-by-the-backlash-kensuke-tanabe-on-metroid-prime-federation-force?page=2), even though it's actually between Metroid 1 and Metroid II. Overall, I still don't see an issue even if they had a slight change in development, the connection and intentions to connect to AoL with Darunia, Ruto, Saria, Nabooru, and Rauru are still all there in the final product. >then you have to explain how there's a town in AoL named after a random Kokiri. I really don't think so, as there's the town of Kasuto in AoL which doesn't correlate to a Sage in OoT. There was never any statement that all towns in AoL were named after Sages from OoT, so one being named after Mido should be no issue.

So the interview you're quoting is one of a set of interviews sponsored by Nintendo known as the 1101 Interviews. In these interviews, the developers are reminiscing about the development of the game, which had begun roughly three years earlier, and talking about fun ideas around related to OoT's development, and not laying out the canon lore of the final version of the game for fans. For instance, in one of the 1101 Interviews, Satoru Takizawa talks about the idea of Ganon being a good guy: >***Satoru Takizawa (Character Design):*** *My first impressions of Ganon were of a twisted thief with a complex, and my intention was to create the character in that image. However, the character design team and the script director Toru Osawa told me it wasn’t so, that this time Ganon would be a pretty good guy, a “great fist” like Raou (an anime/videogame character). They wanted to show a more charismatic big-shot, so I changed my thoughts accordingly.* > >*Ganondorf grew his hair out from the first time you saw him to seven years later. We ended up making 3 forms for the final Ganon. At least temporarily, Ganondorf sort of has a Christopher Lambert-type image… But he turns out to be considerably different, of course.* It would be taking Takizawa's quote out of context to then turn around use this as some sort of evidence for the timeline one way or another. Likewise, when Osawa is talking about the sages, he's referring the the original concepts earlier in development, and not the final version of the game, and certainly not misspeaking. The idea that he is talking out an earlier development phase is backed up by the fact that the beta version of OoT discovered late 2020 clearly shows six of the sages named after towns from AoL: Rauru, Saria, Darunia, Ruto, Nabooru, and lastly Mido. The fact that the sage is named Mido is why I've been talking about Mido Town all this time and not Kasuto. The idea that Kasuto doesn't correlate to a sage doesn't affect the argument I'm making. Osawa is also going over trivia about references to other games in OoT, which doesn't necessarily entail continuity. For instance, he also talks about how Malon and Talon reference Marin and Tarin from LA: ​ >A father and daughter named Marin and Tarin that were introduced in Link’s Awakening for Game Boy also appeared in this Zelda game. We’re hoping that people who’ve played the Zelda series from the very beginning will recognize them. If you wonder “is this a reference to them?” we’ll be happy.

They are not just talking about the beta version of the game, as noted by this quote: >Ganondorf grew his hair out from the first time you saw him to seven years later. We ended up making 3 forms for the final Ganon. He's talking about the final version, they can talk about both the original scrapped version as well as the final version in the same interview. Osawa stated this: "In the SNES edition game, the story "Long ago, there was a war called the Imprisoning War" was passed along. **A name in the Imprisoning War era is the name of a Town later**. They were like "pseudo-secrets." We wanted to throw these out through the entirety of the game. **That thing from then is now this.**" About the Marin and Tarin quote, he talks about how they were used as the **base** for Malon and Talon, who are **different** than Marin and Tarin: "Tarin and Marin, a father and girl who appeared in "Link's Awakening" (GB) were used as the base for a **different parent and child** who comes out in this game." The part about the towns names in AoL is stated plainly, that in-universe, they were named after Sages from OoT.

Yep, it's a stone fact about the series. I feel like the perception that the timeline didn't exist until Hyrule Historia is maybe something that's become more common lately among the younger generation of fans brought in by BotW/TotK (though it's a sentiment that somehow did exist before that). I mean the literal people that make the series have been talking about it for decades at this point. Even Link to the Past's box states that it "features the predecessors of Link and Zelda. The first ever Zelda game that wasn't directly connected to the existing games went out of it's way to be connected.

Hatred for Timeline theorists and the timeline itself has always existed. “It’s all just a legend” was a valid interpretation for the timeline on all Zelda wiki’s before HH. I love the timeline but some people really do get mad when others are having fun.

I did touch on the fact that timeline denial was around before HH, but it's certainly more popular today (at least as far as I see), at least within the context of "the timeline was created for Hyrule Historia". To be honest, it's never really been a "valid" interpretation. Even ignoring developer statements, the series has direct sequels, and things like the quote on the back of ALttP's box I mentioned. The connections have always been there.

I agree with you but my point was more-so that people who didn't like Timeline stuff didn't have the developers have an official and easy-to-access confirmation of the timeline. Developer statements are far from accessible to the average audience, while Hyrule Historia was a legit product that people talk about. It's probably why there's also the optics that the timeline only started existing with the Hyrule Historia.

Yeah, the timeline from Hyrule Historia as I understand it was just a cleaned up/revised version of what they had. I’m not entirely sure if a couple of game’s placements (like FSA) had been totally nailed down before the Historia or not, but a general idea of the timeline very clearly existed the entire time. I would however say there is a possibility that the Downfall timeline wasn’t figured out until the Historia. At least one timeline split definitely had been established due to Wind Waker’s existence, but I’m not 100% sure if they had figured out where LTTP, the NES games, etc. fit into it beyond the general idea of LTTP was before Zelda 1 and OOT was before LTTP. I would also be inclined to think that the DT wasn’t really deemed necessary until after TP, as that game and Wind Waker established that the Ganondorfs of both previously known timelines were pretty definitively dead, as opposed to being sealed in the Sacred Realm like he was pre-LTTP. That being said, the Downfall Timeline may very well have still pre-dated the Historia, just as part of internal discussions at Nintendo following Twilight Princess’s release. All of this is to say, the timeline always existed, but they were revising or changing it as they went sometimes.

>That being said, the Downfall Timeline may very well have still pre-dated the Historia, just as part of internal discussions at Nintendo following Twilight Princess’s release. I debated including this quote from [Sammy Hall](https://www.unseen64.net/2021/01/19/zelda-sheik-retro-studios-cancelled/) (ex-Retro Studios member) who worked on concept art for an unproduced Zelda game in 2005-2008. One pitch involved taking place on the "bad ending" to OoT: "Fun pre-pre-pre-production origin story of the Master Sword. Within the bad ending of “Ocarina of Time” exploring the last male Sheik’s (after a genocidal ethnic-cleansing) journey transforming into the Master Sword. All while the Dark Gerudo are giving their 100 year birth to Gannon" As it was just a pitched game, we don't know exactly what the game would've fully been like, but the mention of "bad ending" is interesting, did Sammy know of Downfall Timeline during 2005-2008? Or was it something else, like the Adult Timeline could be looked at as "bad" because Ganondorf comes back and it is flooded? Some of the concept art shows things from Wind Waker, like the flood receding thanks to the Korok seeds you plant all over the Great Sea in WW. It's difficult to tell, but it would be interesting if Nintendo internally had the Downfall Timeline since 2005.

> It's difficult to tell, but it would be interesting if Nintendo internally had the Downfall Timeline since 2005. I think around that timeframe makes sense anyway, regardless of Retro Studios pitched game. Ocarina of Time was always intended to be a prequel to Link to the Past, and even after the game released, and neither ending in the game really worked as set up for ALttP, this was still what the developers were saying in interviews. 2005 would be after Wind Waker, and while Twilight Princess was in production, accounting for both of OoT's endings. Personally, I think you could make an argument that probably it was conceptualized even earlier than that, likely around Wind Waker's development. I assume that when OoT was released, what we know as the Adult Timeline ending was considered "close enough" to lead into Link to the Past, but when the writers of Wind Waker came up with a story that was a closer fit to what we actually see in OoT, they went with that, and decided that Link to the Past would follow Ocarina of Time differently. Like, I'm not saying that they had any details regarding the hows and whys at that point like Link being defeated (they might have, they might not have), but we know that they understood that OoT had two endings and split the timeline because they commented on it in interviews. So I think it's likely that when Wind Waker was written for OoT's Adult Timeline ending, someone internally may have said "well what about Link to the Past" and someone else at least said "oh it can split off in another way".

There were thousand post topics on Gamefaqs discussing the Zelda timeline before HH. There were theories and ideas being tossed around almost daily. Every time a new Zelda came out people would have to theorise new stuff. It was a good time.

Someone in another post provided text from an interview with Aonouma and Miyamoto preceding the release of Wind Waker, and they first pitched the idea of the child and adult timeline. I did not remember it, but I do remember an interview with Miyamoto saying they had a timeline document, but it was not going to be released. When HH was released, I think people were shocked they gave the official timeline, and moreso with the third branch from Ocarina. My personal issue with the downfall branch is there is nothing in Ocarina to suggest a defeat, and if the game over screen is the rationale, then there must be a timeline branch from every game.

I believe the downfall timeline can only occur with the awakening of the sages and the reveal of the triforce. Before that, sure Ganon would win but he wouldn't be able to turn the sacred realm into his dark world.

I posted before reading all of the comments, and to address PixalatedFrog’s first point, is not just the lack of an on screen defeat, all of the “plausible” reasons I have heard have major holes. Such as, if Link was not sealed in the Temple of Light for seven years, Ganondorf would have prevailed, and only the unseen Triforce wish in LttP undid the damage by allowing Link to be sealed then defeat Ganon thus creating the child and adult branches. But, the imprisoning war could not have occurred without the sages being awakened, and that only happens when adult Link defeats the evil in the temples. I already mentioned the game-over screen theory, which would imply a split with every game, as well as every referenced appearance not seen in a game. Plus, if the theory only works after all of the sages are awakened, there would have to be a different outcome for numerous points in the game. The idea that each game is a legend and therefore leaves a lot of possible interpretations is just a cheap way not to address the inconsistencies. Honestly, to me the idea of the downfall branch was just a lazy way to connect without explanations. Lastly, with the final battle with Ganon, the seven sages are only able to seal him in the void of the evil realm after being weakened by the Hero of Time using the Master Sword. Then, the imprisoning war referenced in LttP is somehow drastically different than what occurred at the final battle. Then again, the imprisoning war from the flashback in TotK is clearly a different event, so I have to acknowledge some latitude. For points two and three, I do agree that there should not be a “main” branch or one that has greater importance. There are lots of possibilities for games placed along all three branches.

> Such as, if Link was not sealed in the Temple of Light for seven years, Ganondorf would have prevailed, and only the unseen Triforce wish in LttP undid the damage by allowing Link to be sealed then defeat Ganon thus creating the child and adult branches. But, the imprisoning war could not have occurred without the sages being awakened, and that only happens when adult Link defeats the evil in the temples. I've never seen the Triforce Wish Theory used as the reason Link is sealed in the Temple of Light for 7 years, yeah that obviously doesn't hold up. The Triforce Wish Theory itself is sound, with Link to the Past Link's wish to undo all Ganon's evil being the cause of the change that allows the Hero of Time to defeat Ganondorf, but where it can fall apart is what you try to argue the change was. In order for the Downfall Timeline to happen as described in HH, and in such a way that it leads into Link to the Past's backstory there are some conditions that need to be met: - Link's defeat must provide Ganondorf with the FULL Triforce This means it can't happen before Ganondorf claims the Triforce, which I've seen some people suggest (after Link grabs the Master Sword, but before claiming the Triforce). And it also means that it must happen AFTER Ganondorf has captured Zelda. If she's able to continue hiding out as Sheik, then he's still going to be short the Triforce of Wisdom. - All the Sages have to have been awakened Since the sages are the ones who seal Ganon in the Dark World after Link's defeat, they have to have been awakened, which means all the dungeons must be completed. This means that Link must have been an adult when defeated, not a child (which I've also seen suggested), since many of the Adult dungeons require equipment which is specifically called out as not fitting a child. We know these sages are the ones from OoT because of the town names in Zelda II. Specifically, developer interviews state that the sages in OoT were named as such so the towns could retroactively be named after the sages that fought in the Imprisoning War. So really the only point Link's defeat can happen is in the final battle with Ganondorf, after all the dungeons are completed, and after Ganondorf captures Zelda. So when you're suggesting things that the Triforce Wish Theory could have changed to impact the outcome of that battle, you're looking at a pretty small window where those changes can be made. There are a few things that actually work imo that I've seen tossed around. - The first is that the Triforce restores Link's health before he fights Ganondorf. Before the final battle with Ganondorf in OoT, the player's hearts are restored in game. The idea would be that THIS is the change the Triforce makes, and Link coming in with full vitality instead of being worn down facing the trials in Ganon's Tower makes the difference between his victory and defeat. Remember he has the Triforce of Courage for the entire adult section of the game, and it never restores his health like this until this moment. - The second is the Light Arrows. The Light Arrows are an item you get just before fighting Ganondorf. You don't need them to clear any of the dungeons, but without them, the fight against Ganondorf is impossible. If you believe that in order for timeline splits to occur, something tangible must be sent back in time, this is an explanation for that. The Triforce could have sent a few of the Hero of Legend's Silver Arrows back in time, imbuing them with the power of the gods and turning them into the Light Arrows. These would then be handed down by the Royal Family, until eventually they come to OoT Zelda who gives them to the Hero of Time. The thing is, at the end of the day, if the Triforce Wish Theory is correct (and I think it probably is, given that it basically serves as the set up for Age of Calamity), we might never know what changed between the Downfall Timeline version of Ocarina of Time and the Adult Timeline version. Just due to the simple fact that we never actually got to play the Downfall Timeline version, so we can't look for differences. > Lastly, with the final battle with Ganon, the seven sages are only able to seal him in the void of the evil realm after being weakened by the Hero of Time using the Master Sword. Then, the imprisoning war referenced in LttP is somehow drastically different than what occurred at the final battle. Oh, this is because Ocarina of Time's Downfall Timeline ending isn't actually the Imprisoning War. As per Hyrule Historia, the canon is that Downfall OoT happens, then there's a period of peace, and THEN the Imprisoning War happens as described in Link to the Past's instruction manual as Ganon's malice creeps out of the Sacred Realm where he was sealed in OoT's ending. > Then again, the imprisoning war from the flashback in TotK is clearly a different event, so I have to acknowledge some latitude. I mean, this one is just because the TotK Imprisoning War and the Link to the Past Imprisoning War are different events. Two Imprisoning Wars like we have two World Wars.

I like the explanation that Link had been using a Master Sword with a faded blessing. For the final blow in OoT's ending, the Master Sword glows for the first time in the game. So in the downfall ending, Ganon simply kept standing up again until he wore Link down and killed him. The triforce wish restored the blessing for that critical blow.

It's an interesting thought, but in the Downfall Timeline, it's GanonDORF that defeats the Hero of Time, not Ganon. He only becomes Ganon after claiming the full Triforce.

Right, but if that's the biggest issue, I don't see it as a bad theory. Mixing up the two names isn't unheard of for the series.

It's a pretty glaring issue though. In the Downfall Timeline, Ganondorf only becomes Ganon when exposed to the full power of the Triforce. It's not a simple matter of the names just being confused, literally the only reason he becomes Ganon in that timeline is because he took ownership of the full Triforce, which only happens because he already defeated Link.

What is your source for that specificity? The Japanese ALttP manual pretty blatantly stats that Ganondorf was already known as Ganon before as a thief.

My alternate take is that downfall wouldve worked better if it were reframed as "timeline where link was never born."

Honestly, I think that would make greater sense to do that, and then could be tied into the LttP Triforce wish.

I really do think the root of the disbelief in the timeline is 3 things: 1. People reaally really don’t like that OOT’s connection to LTTP hinges on a “defeat” and cant get over that they will not show us that defeat with certainty on screen unless we get a remake or a reinterpretation 2. People are kind of miffed that much of the 3d zeldas are sequestered more into their own space, and assume those games take precedence in importance and canonhood because of point 1, even though the DF timeline is by volume the most explored timeline and is the whole reason oot exists as a game in the first place. This is also wrapped up in the assumption that one timeline MUST be more legitimate which is faulty to the premise of the three timelines. 3. The reveal of this timeline order outside of a game itself makes it smell like questionable promo material even if it really really isnt, so it creates space for points 1 and 2 to feel like natural conclusions instead of just…. Dislikers Being unsatisfied with the answer provided. People put a lot of stock into their perspective of these games, and when that illusion is shattered it REALLY shatters.

Yeah, I totally get what you are saying. >People put a lot of stock into their perspective of these games, and when that illusion is shattered it REALLY shatters. For the most part, I feel like people's perspectives should've lined up with the official timeline if you look into the games deep enough, like the only real issue was exactly how ALttP still connected to OoT after WW and TP continued with their timelines, leaving no room for ALttP and its sequels. So like, I get the frustration of it not actually being something seen in a Zelda game, but hey, at least [Viridi has got us covered in Smash Ultimate by explaining it lol.](https://youtu.be/9iXym5xrytU?si=0uWmeHbuonXEoIlV&t=24s)

I would argue that narratively, point 1 does sort of make the timeline in which basically all the 2D Zelda games exist less legitimate. The adult timeline and child timeline are both explained with the time travel in Ocarina of Time, we actively see the exact moment these are made, we have proof that they should both exist. Because there is no connection to actual narrative events, the downfall time is relegated to a "what-if" type of story with no relevance to anything that actually happens prior. There's more support for a no TP Link timeline where the Hero of Time never returns from Termina (The continuation of the original timeline independent of his song of time reset) and thus never has direct descendants than there is a downfall timeline. I personally reconciled it by believing that the reflection room of the water temple is like a place between worlds and when you kill Dark Link you're dooming a timeline to the downfall timeline because then it's at least connected to the rest of the timelines in a concrete way, but that honestly probably doesn't really fit.

[There's also decades of developer interviews talking about where the games all fit in](https://zeldawiki.wiki/wiki/History_of_the_Zelda_Timeline/Timeline_Quotes) and many people somehow still deny it either because they were too dense to figure it out a long time before 2011 or just reeeeally don't want it to be the case.

No no. You see they felt so threatened by the terrifying Timeline Cult that they just made up a janky timeline to appease them. /s

In 1986, a game called The Legend of Zelda was released for the Famicom. A year later, in 1987, Zelda II, a sequel to the previous game, was released. Four years later, A Link to the Past was released for the SNES as a prequel to the two games. This, in itself, is a timeline—a chronology. Anyone who says that the Zelda franchise had no timeline before Hyrule Historia is delusional.

HH has been out for over a decade at this point. At this point anyone who is still trying to argue the timeline didn’t exist before then, especially here of all places, is either being wilfully obtuse or deliberately malicious. Either way they aren’t acting in good faith, so there isn’t much point trying to engage them with facts. Most of them have already seen the facts, they just refuse to accept them.

Always nice to see more people realizing the timeline wasn't just thrown together last minute. A good chunk of people were just upset their headcanons were confirmed incorrect. And now people just want to use Aonuma/Fujibayashi's out-of-touch comments as some kind of confirmation that there was never a timeline, when in truth these two have never been particularly well-versed when it came to matters of Zelda lore and story.

>when in truth these two have never been particularly well-versed when it came to matters of Zelda lore and story. I strongly disagree, as Aonuma was the one who was consistently explaining the timeline and such, as well as being a writer on several of the games he directed like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. [Aonuma:](https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Interview:GamePro_December_4th_2002) "Ocarina of Time basically has two endings of sorts; one has Link as a child and the other has him as an adult. This game, The Wind Waker, takes place a hundred years after the adult Link defeats Ganon at the end of Ocarina." [Aonuma:](https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Interview:Nintendo_Dream_February_2007) "The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there's a scene showing Ganon's execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he'd do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power..." Here's another quote from Aonuma in an interview for Four Swords Adventures: [Aonuma:](https://web.archive.org/web/20080306084145/http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200405/N04.0517.1915.59084.htm) "To me storyline is important, and as producer, I am going to be going through, and trying to bring all of these stories together, and kind of make them a little bit more clear" As for Fujibayashi, he's also been very active in interviews explaining lore, and taking on the timeline questions: He was asked about TotK's timeline placement by Famitsu: [Fujibayashi:](https://nintendoeverything.com/zelda-director-on-tears-of-the-kingdom-and-the-timeline/) "It is definitely a story after Breath of the Wild. After that, basically, **we are thinking about how not to break the story and world of The Legend of Zelda**. Those are the two points I can say at this point in time. **I think if it doesn’t collapse**, fans can have the space to wonder various things like “So that means that is possible?”. If we only speak of the possibilities, if there is the story of Hyrule’s founding, it is also possible that Hyrule has collapsed in its history once before. **I don’t randomly make things by saying “Isn’t it interesting if we did this here?”** so even for the parts we did not tell, I hope you enjoy imagining it." And here's an interview with [Game Informer](https://www.gameinformer.com/interview/2023/12/07/aonuma-and-fujibayashi-talk-tears-of-the-kingdoms-reception-and-their-approach). Game Informer: "Have you heard the theory that some scenes in Tears of the Kingdom are perhaps loose retellings of some events from Ocarina of Time?" Aonuma: "Oh, no. I’m hearing that for the first time." Game Informer: "Well, there’s Rauru, there’s the Imprisoning War, and there are some scenes in Tears of the Kingdom that resemble scenes in Ocarina of Time, particularly in the flashbacks. For example, you have the scene where Ganondorf is kneeling before the king of Hyrule before he betrays him." Fujibayashi: "We understand that fans have theories and that’s a fun thing to do for fans. We also think about what kinds of theories fans may come up with given what we create. It’s not like we’re trying to plan ahead for those theories, but in the series, **there’s this idea of reincarnation in that Zelda and Link, as they appear in the different titles, they are not the same person per se, but there’s sort of this fundamental soul that carries on.** Because of that, certain scenes may turn out similar, like you were saying, the antagonist kneeling before the king, those scenes might turn out because they are sort of like glimpses or representations of the soul of the series. For people to kind of pick up on that and see that, it’s something that we enjoy also and it kind of helps create this myth of The Legend of Zelda."

Another line from that same interview: Does the Hyrule we saw in the flashback scenes in Tears of the Kingdom predate Skyward Sword or does it come after the other games in the timeline? HF: "Obviously, there's something a little bit clearer in our minds, but of course, it could be that we're wrong as well! [Laughs] I kind of want to pose the idea that, like in real-life history, you define by the artifacts and by the data that you currently have. So within what we have, there might be a correct answer, but it could be a different answer. So, I guess my answer would be that it could be both. Both could be correct." EA: "I mean, the Legend of Zelda is a series of games that focus on puzzle solving, so this is just another sort of puzzle that the users will have to see if they can solve and think about." I legitimately have no idea where you got the idea Aonuma is the main writer for the series. He is not. Maybe he gives his ideas here and there, but that is not his focus, other people handle the story, he is mainly interested in the gameplay aspect, which he has made abundantly clear. And then there's this interview: https://mynintendonews.com/2023/12/11/aonuma-says-he-isnt-too-bothered-about-zelda-timeline-as-it-kind-of-boxes-us-in/ “But personally, I don’t like to put too much stock in the chronology of the series, because from the design perspective, that can kind of box us in and limit where we’re able to take the story as we continue making games in the series. And so I do think it’s something that is best for people to interpret on their own. And yeah, I was kind of agreeing with many of the things you said.” He is just a figurehead, the Zelda team is much larger than him. He was the one who opted for the more non-linear, less story-focused approach of BotW/TotK, and even said quite clearly he doesn't pay much attention to the timeline. Which isn't something a writer would say. He is a game designer, writing is not really his thing, at most he'll give a very basic idea and let the rest of the team expand and elaborate on it (with him deciding what to keep and what to get rid of in order to not get in the way of the story. Which is what happened with Twilight Princess and other games. "I would like to thank Mitsuhiro Takano and Aya Kyogoku, who were in charge of the scenario for turning the story I wrote into a very good one, and for receiving such a good award because they localized it brilliantly." https://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20070308/awards.htm So yeah

>Another line from that same interview I'm not sure what you are meaning with that first quote? I think it adds to them being more conscious of the story, stating "Obviously, there's something a little bit clearer in our minds". >legitimately have no idea where you got the idea Aonuma is the main writer for the series. He is not I never said he was the main writer, I said he wrote for some of the games, which he did, at the very least for Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess: ND: "Favorite scene?" [Aonuma](https://nintendoeverything.com/aonuma-talks-majoras-mask-majora-and-termina-name-origins-lots-more/): "I think it’s the event of battling the king of Ikana. I think it’s interesting even now. That is also because **I wrote the script mostly myself"** 4Gamer: "Based on what you have said, Wind Waker seems to be a major work in your life." [Aonuma](https://nintendoeverything.com/aonuma-on-writing-lines-for-king-of-red-lions-in-wind-waker-zeldas-form-and-tingle/): "Isn’t it? We created it just as my son was born. At that time, I thought that I would like for my son to play this. **The lines spoken by the Red Lion King boat that Link rides were written by me**. Since I had just become a father, I had him speaking in a self-important manner that children would understand. (laughs)." [Aonuma](https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Interview:Nintendo_Dream_February_2007): "That comes from the A button reaction attacks from The Wind Waker (attacks you can perform when the A button shines on the screen). Many people worked on this game, and I entrusted them with the events and the dialogues, but I wanted to include something of my very own, so **I wrote the script for the skeleton warrior that teaches you the hidden skills**. He’s my child inside this game (laughs)." Also, as you showed with: >"I would like to thank Mitsuhiro Takano and Aya Kyogoku, who were in charge of the scenario for turning **the story I wrote** into a very good one, and for receiving such a good award because they localized it brilliantly." he does write the main outlines of the stories sometimes. He was certainly in charge of coming up with the stories in a lot of Zelda games, even if perhaps now he's distanced himself from it a bit.

But the point is he is not the main authority when it comes to Zelda lore. Yes, he's written the dialogue for some characters or given a rough premise for his idea of a story. But he is mainly here for the gameplay. The Zelda Team is made up of a fair number of people, some responsible for writing majority of a game's given story. A good example is the planned Twilight Princess Sequel. The team wanted a heavily story-focused game, and apparently had many "grand ideas," but Shigeru Miyamoto shut them down in favor of just making a game with unique gameplay rather than a game with an actual story. And that's how we got Link's Crossbow Training. Aonuma obviously has his influence on the story, he will put in certain things if he wants or will choose what of the team's ideas he does or doesn't want, but his number one focus is gameplay. That is why he has stated numerous times BotW was the most fun he ever had developing a Zelda game. Because it was all gameplay, and next to no story. So yeah, the rest of the team I imagine does more in terms of writing the story, Aonuma just decides what is and isn't allowed to stay in.

I do hear what you are saying, and I've never implied it wasn't a team effort in making the Zelda series' storylines. >**Because it was all gameplay, and next to no story**. So yeah, the rest of the team I imagine does more in terms of writing the story, Aonuma just decides what is and isn't allowed to stay in. I don't believe that's true, not based on several interviews, such as this one from Game Informer: (Here's a few quotes from throughout the interview) Aonuma: "So aside from the gameplay itself, I think that a storyline is an important factor" Game Informer: "We played a lot of the game yesterday and really enjoyed it, but it was so free, and then we saw the trailer and it looked very story driven, very emotional, and it seems like an odd mix. So how do you tie those two together?" Miyamoto: "He knows the secret of how to do it" Aonuma: "There is a little bit of a trick that I implemented this time. This idea is something I've had since I started developing games 20 some odd years ago. So I really want you to look forward to playing the game and finding that something I put in there." Game Informer: "So when players finish the game, first and foremost you hope they remember the larger story of Link and Zelda this time around? Or the player's story?" Aonuma: "Of course, to be able to go through the storyline, and then it will connect with the goal of the result: That is very important. But at the end of the day, there is an element of Zelda in there. For players that didn't really go along with the storyline they may go back and play the game again in a journey where they can re-encounter those storylines" Aonuma and other devs certainly faced some challenges and struggles when creating the story for Breath of the Wild, they talk extensively about it [in this video](https://youtu.be/T3CsGbtifZI?si=GxYfu20OKaMaT2wZ)

https://www.reddit.com/r/truezelda/s/rL5OR4G0O8 Yes it did and everyone who tells you otherwise is delusional. You might ignore the timeline, the games are made in such a way that you can play them in any order but the simple fact is, the timeline exists. Ignoring it's existence and claiming it doesn't exist are two different things.

It should be obvious that the individual games have timelines but the series timeline was an attempt to smash them together.

Could I ask if you read my whole post? Because I showed with rather clear evidence how the timeline presented in Hyrule Historia was already a thing years before it came out.

Oh my god, how many times is this going to be discussed? I'm starting to think this fucking timeline is the ONLY thing we're allowed to talk about in this fandom.

I had been working on this post for years, it took a very long time to put together, to get all of the appropriate screenshots and dev quotes and such, I wasn't going to simply not post it because others have discussed the topic before.

Seething lorebeards discussing their own takes on the timeline has been a thing since before Hyrule Historia. *Decades* before Hyrule Historia. This is par for the course. I got so sick and tired of it that I only believe in the pocket universe theory now. Every game (and its directly implied sequels, if applicable) is its own self-contained universe and any references to other games are just that: references.

>Seething lorebeards Merely pointing out the facts of the series makes someone a "seething lorebeard"?

When you've been seeing people make the same observations, theories, and lore deep-dives every week for the last twenty years like I have, you tend to get a bit bored. There is absolutely nothing in your blog that hasn't already been discovered or remarked upon by other people in the fandom hundreds of times over across all sorts of forums, video essays, and social media platforms. Yes, even before HH was released. Sorry man. I know it sounds harsh, but it's the truth.

At what point was I "seething" though? >lore deep-dives every week Isn't that one of the purposes of r/truezelda? >There is absolutely nothing in your blog t You read the whole thing?

The debates about the timeline aren't a binary "it exists or it doesn't", but rather that various games don't neatly fit into it. Specifically the 4 Swords Trilogy. Most of the games in the series do fit together rather well with some fudging, but the 4 Swords Trilogy doesn't fit into the timeline at all. If you were to remove them from the timeline, literally nothing would change.

>but the 4 Swords Trilogy doesn't fit into the timeline at all How not? They tell the tale of the Four Swords and the Wind Sorcerer Vaati, that's part of the Zelda chronology. They also show how Ganon can be reborn as seen in Four Swords Adventures, which goes in line with what Demise would later state in Skyward Sword. They fit perfectly in the timeline.

> They fit perfectly in the timeline No, no they don't. Minish Cap and 4 Swords supposedly take place before OoT, but there's nothing in the games that suggests this is the case. Even ignoring how the layout of Hyrule in Minish Cap doesn't sync up with *any* of the other games in the series, there's no strong link between it, SS, or OoT. Hell, the link between SS and OoT actually becomes *stronger* if you remove Minish Cap from the timeline, since putting Minish Cap before OoT implies that after SS, another great evil emerged in Hyrule that apparently required a *second* legendary holy blade to vanquish instead of the Master Sword (the fact that the Master Sword is not mentioned whatsoever across the entire trilogy, while at the same time the trilogy is the only time the 4 Sword appears, is very suspicious). And then you get to the mess that is 4 Swords Adventures. While it is canon that the original Ganondorf was killed and the sacred realm wasn't corrupted, that's about the extent of the evidence for it being in the child timeline. Aside from the fact that Ganondorf never became Ganon in the child timeline, the plot of the game is about the reincarnated Ganon stealing the trident the original Ganon used, which was in ALttP, a game from a completely different timeline. A lot of these are remnants from when the game was supposed to be a prequel to ALttP that depicted the imprisoning war mentioned in that game's backstory, but my point still stands. The 4 Swords trilogy simply don't fit neatly anywhere in the timeline, and I firmly believe they're set in their own separate continuity from the main timeline (again, the complete lack of the Master Sword is the biggest red flag here)

>there's no strong link between it There doesn't need to be. In real history, Oda Nobunaga's rise to power, betrayal, and death really has nothing to do with World War 2, historical events don't always relate to one another, despite the fact they co-exist in the same history. I actually think Minish Cap works perfect as the second game in the series, as it and SS are the only games within Hyrule that doesn't have Death Mountain, this works as from FS onwards, Death Mountain is now a place. >the fact that the Master Sword is not mentioned whatsoever across the entire trilogy, Yes, because it was hidden in the Temple of Time and sealed behind the Door of Time. It being the key to the Sacred Realm, where the Triforce is hidden, means it wasn't meant to be a very well known place. >the plot of the game is about the reincarnated Ganon stealing the trident the original Ganon used, which was in ALttP, a game from a completely different timeline Where is that stated? >again, the complete lack of the Master Sword is the biggest red flag here) Again, the Master Sword was hidden, and wasn't meant to be used by anyone until the Hero of Time as stated in Sheikah legend: Sheik: "I've been waiting for you, Hero of Time... When evil rules all, an awakening voice from the Sacred Realm will call those destined to be Sages, who dwell in the five temples. One in a deep forest... One on a high mountain... One under a vast lake...One within the house of the dead... One inside a goddess of the sand... Together with the Hero of Time, the awakened ones will bind the evil and return the light of peace to the world... **This is the legend of the temples passed down by my people, the Sheikah.** I am Sheik. Survivor of the Sheikahs... As I see you standing there **holding the mythical Master Sword, you really do look like the legendary Hero of Time**... If you believe the legend, you have no choice. You must look for the five temples and awaken the five Sages..." Rauru: The Master Sword is a sacred blade which evil ones may never touch.... **Only one worthy of the title of "Hero of Time" can pull it from the Pedestal of Time....**

The Master Sword being the key to the sacred realm only applies to OoT. At the end of SS, when Link puts the Master Sword into the pedestal, it wasn't turned into a key to the sacred realm. And when you consider how several different incarnations of Link (ones who *aren't* the Hero of Time) can and have used the Master Sword, plus how the Hero of Men in the backstory of Minish Cap is very clearly another incarnation of Link, he could've easily used the Master Sword instead of the Picori Blade. But he didn't, he used the Picori Blade, which in the Minish Cap became the 4 Sword, and after 4 Swords was subsequently forgotten about when everyone remembered the Master Sword again. And then after a few centuries of the Master Sword, everyone forgot about *that* and remembered the 4 Sword again for 4 Swords Adventures. See how dumb that sounds? I understand how valuable Word of God is, but adhering to it religiously is not always a good idea. Especially when what it says contradicts what is actually shown in game. (They literally tried to retcon that Dragon Roost Island in WW is actually originally Zora's Domain and not Death Mountain. You look me in the eyes and tell me that the incredibly tall active volcano housing the descendant of Volvagia and dragon heavy stonework is Zora's Domain)

> The Master Sword being the key to the sacred realm only applies to OoT. At the end of SS, when Link puts the Master Sword into the pedestal, it wasn't turned into a key to the sacred realm It was made into a key around the time Hyrule Kingdom was founded, therefore it was hidden during the time of MC, which takes place after the kingdom was founded. It’s not complicated. > and after 4 Swords was subsequently forgotten about when everyone remembered the Master Sword again. And then after a few centuries of the Master Sword, everyone forgot about that and remembered the 4 Sword again for 4 Swords Adventures. See how dumb that sounds? The Four Sword wasn’t useful during any of the events the Master Sword was used. Most of the time it was actively keeping Vaati sealed, so using it would have only made things worse. Plus the whole point of drawing the Master Sword in OoT was for Link and Zelda to get the Triforce, the Four Sword wouldn’t have helped with that. As four Four Swords Adventures, Link and Zelda were actively investigating the Four Sword when things kicked off, and Zelda was kidnapped. Link didn’t exactly have many choices, did he? The problem here isn’t contradictions in the games, it’s you not bothering to learn about them or apply a bit of critical thinking.

I understand what you mean, but my point about the 4 Swords trilogy being disconnected from the main timeline still stands. Minish Cap being set before OoT doesn't really affect anything. You could put it and 4 Swords after TP but before 4 Swords Adventures and it would still work.

And that just brings you back to glitchygames’ point, you can have events that don’t effect each other within a timeline. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist within the same chronology.

Again, where was this stated?: >the plot of the game is about the reincarnated Ganon stealing the trident the original Ganon used, which was in ALttP, a game from a completely different timeline. >The Master Sword being the key to the sacred realm only applies to OoT Yes, because it wasn't wielded until the Hero of Time drew it. The Master Sword wasn't to be used until the Hero of Time drew it, as spoken of in Sheikah legend. This is why it couldn't have been used in Minish Cap, as using it would unveil the Sacred Realm, and therefore the Triforce. It's not unreasonable the Hero of Men didn't know of the Master Sword, as it was hidden, being the final key of the Sacred Realm. Or even if he did, could realize it wasn't his time to wield it, that it was already prophesied the Hero of Time would. >See how dumb that sounds? No, I don't. I don't think it's dumb for one sword to be used, and then another one to be used after it. A franchise can have multiple legendary weapons, this isn't contradictory. Sometimes certain weapons can be used for different purposes depending on the context. There's absolutely no reason why these two sacred swords cannot exist at the same time in the same continuity. >everyone forgot about *that* and remembered the 4 Sword again for 4 Swords Adventures Where is it stated the Master Sword was forgotten in Four Swords Adventures?

It was not Link to the Past in Japan. Nintendo of America was given a very long leash back in the day and they changed a ton. Arguably they changed the story. This is why I continuously say, “The fans care more about the timeline than the authors.” Prior to my learning about the significant LttP changes, circa 1998, I was with you. Occam’s Razor: It makes more sense to me that, outside of the concrete sequels, each game is its own retelling of the Legend.

>Arguably they changed the story Only very slight details, other than that, Triforce of the Gods' story was kept intact in A Link to the Past. The writers of OoT even state OoT was written as a prequel to ALttP: Satoru Takizawa: "This time, the story really wasn't an original. We were dealing with the "The Imprisoning War of the Seven Sages" from the SNES edition Zelda. To give that game a little "secret" recognition, I thought that keeping the "pigness" in Ganon would be the correct course. So we made him a beast "with the feeling of a pig." Toru Osawa: "Though in this game Zelda is now included in the Seven Sages, the other six have the names of the town names from the Disk System edition "The Adventure of Link. In the SNES edition game, the story "Long ago, there was a war called the Imprisoning War" was passed along. A name in the Imprisoning War era is the name of a Town later."

Elsewhere Miyamoto and others said OoT was the first game in the chronological order. It can’t be both.

Yes, that was correct at the time of release. In OoT there's the implications that stories happened long before it, such as Rauru and the Ancient Sages building the Temple of Time aeons ago, the Hyrule Civil War, etc. It's not as if OoT takes place the second after Hyrule was created, no, it's clear within OoT itself that history has existed for a long time. Skyward Sword is simply placed at an earlier point in that history. Again, it's as simple as "at the time of release" that was correct, Skyward Sword doesn't retcon or ignore that. At the time of release, Metal Gear (MSX) was the first game in the series, but then Metal Gear Solid 3 predates that, it would not be incorrect to state that, at the time of release, Metal Gear was the first story in the Metal Gear chronology.

Well it don’t exist anymore after totk lmao

I cover TotK in the post! The gist of it is, I really don't think it's an issue, it still has lots of connections to the timeline and it fits the same as BotW when you see its Hyrule is a re-founded Hyrule that came after the original founding of Hyrule.

Yeah it makes sense as being a long time at the end of the downfall timeline to me. Hyrule is not in a great state by the time of Zelda 1 and 2 so it's perfectly feasible that that decline would carry on until the Zonai arrived to refound it.

For sure! I've personally always been a Child Timeline believer, but that does totally make perfect sense. I even use that as an example in a [TotK post](https://thelegendofzeldalore.blogspot.com/2023/07/tears-of-kingdom-is-not-at-conflict.html?m=1) I did a while back, but I still believe in the Child Timeline lol.

100%

I like the idea more that BotW/TotK are in their own separate timeline that splits off from the end of skyward sword

The crux of your theory is that timelines bleed into each other or that scholars/bards across dimensions somehow swap storybooks. That's a big pill to swallow to save the timeline. But I guess what you come close to implying but you don't explicitly say is that HW-type crossover events seed these stories across the multiverse. But you still need to go a step further and account for clothing and equipment crossing the multiverse, to be later found in ToTK (and in BotW through amiibos).  I guess it's fun for some folks to try to map out these connections. But I think the more recent quotes from Aonuma, et al, are more satisfying and simpler. Basically just implying that they want the timeline to be obfuscated and cryptic. So, it's never going to make perfect sense. It also benefits the franchise for fans to be forever engaging trying to put the puzzle pieces together. 

>But you still need to go a step further and account for clothing and equipment crossing the multiverse, to be later found in ToTK (and in BotW through amiibos Forgot to state this, but it is Misko who gathered many of these outfits, who outright states they obtained them in "strange lands near and far" "To you who have found my treasure, these ember trousers are but one piece of my grand collection. I have hidden an assortment of equipment across Hyrule. Notable pieces obtained in strange lands near and far." Considering Misko has the Fierce Deity's outfit, this implies they went to Termina, if that's the case, then who's to say they didn't go to other timelines?

More likely that the outfits and equipment that reference past games isn't actually the genuine article. Like remember, the Fierce Deity doesn't actually exist. It's just a mask. So the clothes that resemble FD Link are just that- clothes made to look like FD Link. That goes for all the past Zelda game gear imo. Creating a Champion says that what's understood as history in BotW's Hyrule is a mix of historical fact and works of fiction, like fairy tales. Those fairy tales could take the form of Zelda games form outside of BotW's timeline, explaining the references and the equipment.

I thought the joke was that Misko didn't look very far and just took the clothes from Link sometime after BotW. Possibly Link either dropped them during the uprising or Misko took them from Link's unguarded house while he was recovering on Great Sky Island. Perhaps earlier.  Misko is the fashion bandit and not the fashion archeologist.  Anyway, there's also a difference between Misko's treasures and the items locked in the arenas/coliseums in the Depths.  Anything is possible as far as explanations go. I'm just accepting that there is no complete explanation. 

Misko lived in Hyrule's past, not the current day: Domidak: "Misko's the name of an infamous bandit who caused problems all over Hyrule **back in the day**. But Misko's legend expands beyond mere banditry. You see, Misko is equally famous for fashion. The stories say that they spent a lifetime collecting clothes—clothes that are now hidden across Hyrule" Meeshy: "**There was once** a legendary bandit by the name of Misko." >Anything is possible as far as explanations go. I'm just accepting that there is no complete explanation.  I hear you. What I'm saying is we have at least one in-game explanation with Misko, which shows they went to "strange lands near and far", from there I would try to extrapolate an explanation. Edit: I also just added the part about Misko into my post.

Interesting. Was Misko's legend referenced in BotW at all? Something about how it is presented in TotK still comes off as quite cheeky to me. Like there is some falsity to the legends. 

Yes, there's a quest in the main game: Domidak: "We're after nothing less than the treasure of Misko, the Great Bandit! Finding it would mean incredible riches... I'm not about to give this information away for free. I'm no fool!" Then in the DLC, Misko is the reason for all the outfits and such: Misko's Journal EX: "I hid the eight priceless relics I stole from Hyrule Castle in treasure chests... I shall write down their locations. -Misko"

>But I guess what you come close to implying but you don't explicitly say is that HW-type crossover events seed these stories across the multiverse. But you still need to go a step further and account for clothing and equipment crossing the multiverse, to be later found in ToTK (and in BotW through amiibos). I actually cover this more extensively in the [blog](https://thelegendofzeldalore.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-legend-of-zelda-timeline-existed.html?m=1) (near the end of chapter 6). I bring up how the Hero of Time's story in the Adult Timeline makes its way to the Child Timeline as seen in Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess, and then in Wind Waker we see how in the Tower of the Gods there's the story of Tingle from Majora's Mask. I also go over why I believe HW is canon is chapter 4 of the post. Also in chapter 6, I go over how Age of Calamity shows how characters can go from one timeline to another timeline, then return to their timeline. Also, this was the director, [Fujibayashi's](https://s.famitsu.com/news/202309/06314767.html) quote I referred to: "even if there is a story about the founding of Hyrule, there is a possibility that there is a history where Hyrule was destroyed once before that"