Zelda Timeline

Legend of Zelda Timeline theory is perhaps the object of greatest debate amongst fans of the series. Nintendo's unconventional formula of "Gameplay first, Story Later" has arguably produced some of the greatest games of all time, but it has also resulted in an incoherent chronology - full of loose ends, contradictions, and general confusion. Fortunately, this has motivated fans to do all they can to sift, sort, and organize the Legend of Zelda canon.

Overview
Since the days of Pong, videogame storylines have endured an amazing evolution, moving from simple "slay the dragon" conflict, through "save the princess" heroism, and into wonderfully deep epics. Early installments of the Legend of Zelda series emerged at a very interesting point of this process; a point where the market was divided between casual platformers and plot-focused RPGs.

Zelda found a niche market somewhere in the middle. This is reflected in the storyline of such games as The Adventure of Link and A Link to the Past, which are simple and yet inspiring. Over the years, Nintendo has kept to this trend. Developers often focus foremost on gameplay and theme, and generally only decide on a definite storyline close to the completion of development. Resulting games are well-connected to the overall Legend of Zelda universe - and consider elements of games past - but do not often present immediate or obvious chronological connections.

In the early stages, this worked wonderfully. The first five Legend of Zelda releases were easily understood and organized. In 1998, the timeline had room even for the content of the Legend of Zelda television show and manga, as well as the mistakes of NoA, which would later be considered non-canonical.

Unfortunately, as time went on the sheer amount of information being introduced into the Legend of Zelda canon made a complete understanding less possible. Games such as The Wind Waker and Four Swords Adventures seemed to strain the connection between older games, and many fans began to wonder whether the Four Swords series had a place in the timeline at all.

English fans of the series wanting to learn more of the timeline began to discuss the concept on the Internet, slowly reaching conclusions on those issues which could be resolved and falling into bitter debate on those which could not. They continue to argue, as they eagerly await the release of Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass.

Timeline News (Spoilers)

 * By November 19th (TP's release date)theorist were becoming increasingly worried that the game would not be compatable with current timeline theory, seeming far to deficeint in tWW/OOT connection, and far to liberal with conections to the FS series.
 * On November 21st, Gametrailer's released a lackluster take on the Timeline, which quickly fell under the ridikule of most theorists.

Timeline principles
Timeline theory is often accused of being a collection of irrelevant fan-fiction with no real truth to it. In actuality, a large part of our timeline knowledge is strictly canon; a good deal more consists of simple, well supported inferences based on this canon and the intentions of Zelda's creators. These principles are held to be true by almost all Timeline theorists:

Canon
A canonical statement is one which cannot be reasonably denied within the context of the Legend of Zelda universe. To be more specific, when an official Zelda authority (i.e. a "canonical source") makes an informed, intended statement, that statement must be considered a fact in the timeline. Furthermore, when such a source makes such a statement, it is assumed to be intended and informed (and therefore canonical) unless an excellent argument is made to the contrary.

Sources considered canonical

 * All properly translated textual game content and game manual content from Nintendo-developed The Legend of Zelda games.
 * As-of-yet uncontradicted developer-announced information relating to upcoming The Legend of Zelda titles.

Sources considered non-canonical

 * The Legend of Zelda promotional material, such as the cartoon series and comic books.
 * Fan-based Internet sources, such as online forums.
 * The Legend of Zelda games that were not produced by Nintendo, including the Phillips CD-i Games (Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon, Link: The Faces of Evil, and Zelda's Adventure) as well as fan-produced games.

Nintendo-licensed games that are arguably canon

 *  The Legend of Zelda. This game is considered non-canonical since it replaces the hero (Link) with a different character and still tells of the same adventure.
 * BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban. This game is arguably canon. It takes place in Hyrule during Link's absence after ALttP and tells of a hero from another world that vanquishes Ganon shortly after he is resurrected. This story is never contradicted so it can be canon.
 * Zelda: Game & Watch. This game is almost never thought of story wise by fans but its intended place is after AoL. Dragons steal the Triforce and kidnap Zelda and Link stops them. Like BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban, this game is not contradicted and can thus be considered canon.
 * The Legend of Zelda: Game Watch. Thought of even less than its Game & Watch cousin, this game is an undetailed retelling of LoZ and is thus redundant to the timeline.

Intent
When trying to understand a creation, one should always consider the creator. Shigeru Miyamoto, Eiji Aonuma, and their colleagues at Nintendo provide the best possible perspective on the Timeline because their own intentions shape the series. When these intentions can be understood, they provide an excellent (albeit incomplete) blueprint for theorists and are followed with due care.

General Knowledge
Through the study of canon and intent, theorists have come to the following conclusions, which they claim to be almost as "true" as the canon itself.
 * LoZ and AoL center around the same Hero.
 * ALttP and LA center around the same Hero, and precede LoZ/AoL.
 * OoT and MM center around the same Hero, and precede ALttP/LA.
 * TP stars the newest Hero, and succeeds OoT.
 * OoS and OoA center around the same hero.
 * TWW and PH center around the same hero, and succeed TP.
 * TMC, FS, and FSA occur in that order, and are part of the timeline.
 * There is a "Fierce War" preceding OoT.
 * There is a "Seal War" preceding ALttP (which may or may not be represented in OoT).
 * There is a "Demon War" preceding ALttP (which may or may not be the same as the "Seal War", and may be represented in FSA).
 * There is a possible battle against Ganon as he seizes the Triforce of Power before LoZ
 * The curse of the "Legendary" Zelda of AoL succeeds ALttP/LA [possibly even featuring the same Princess Zelda from those games].
 * Vaati [presumably] attacks Hyrule again between TMC and FS (meaning FS's backstory may or may not be TMC).

We can combine all this information and conceive four timeline "arcs"


 * OoT/MM - TP - TWW/PH
 * TMC - FS/FSA
 * ALttP/LA - LoZ/AoL
 * OoS/OoA

Beyond that, all timeline theory is an attempt to combine these arcs and achieve a final chronology.

Time and the Timeline
Understanding the Legend's Timeline requires an understanding of the Legend's concept of time itself. Essentially, time is sequence; first, second, third, and fourth. A very basic concept at first glance, but one that takes on a whole new dimension when "fourth" comes between "first" and "second" and stops "third" from ever occurring.

Is Time Constant?
For the sake of sanity, many suggest that the mechanics of time must remain constant throughout the series. In this, they then fail to understand how Nintendo produces its games. Game story takes a backseat to gameplay, and series consistency takes a backseat to individual game stories. This system results in often-inconsistent Time Mechanics which are quite game-specific. Theorists have adjusted to this, and no longer accept "cross-overs" of specific principles.

The major issue is that of "mutability": Is it possible to change the past? Sometimes it seems as if Zelda Time is mutable, much like Back to the Future or the Marvel comics Universe where in someone who travels to the past ends up changing the future. At other times, it is quite obvious that Zelda Time is immutable, and, as in Harry Potter 3, traveling to the past keeps the future constant. In a specific game, it cannot be both (though it often seems that it would be easier that way) and theorists must work to determine the true nature of time.

Individual Methods of Travel
OoT Travel

The following can be logically concluded from observation of Ocarina of Time:


 * Time is immutable. Actions taken in the past perserve the future, rather than change it. No amount of time-traveling into the past can change the course of the future. Even given this, the course of the future must still be fulfilled in order to play out; the important thing is that the future will not change, no matter what action is taken, because any action that takes place in an immutable time-spectrum contributes to the immutable future. The Windmill Man is a good example; in a mutable timeline, the WMM would not have known the Song of Storms until Link had altered the past.


 * All Transport is physical. Link's body moves as a whole between the two time periods as an entire entity, carrying all his items with him. This may result in "Two Links" (one being the other's future self) existing simultaneously.


 * When Link journeys to the Future, he simply sleeps for [approximately] seven years. There is very little magic involved here, no changes occur besides those which would naturally happen over such a period.


 * When Link journeys to the Past, he is physically reverted to that state he was in when he left. However, he also retains the important items he had gained in the future. Whether or not this process returns to Link items he lost in the future is a point of some debate.


 * Certian OoT gameplay mechanics, such as the Magic Beans, seem to work against this nature of time. As these mecahnics are always seperate from the main storyline, they are considered to have no bearing on timeline theory. [This principle will be known hereafter as the "If It's Not Important to the Plot, Assume It Doesn't Happen" principle.]


 * The trademark "column of blue light" that appears when Link draws or replaces the Master Sword can, as a rule, be noted to signify this type of time travel.

MM Travel


 * Time is Mutable. Link's goal throughout the entirity of this game is to change the future. It may even be the case that, in returning Link to Dawn of the First Day, The Godess of Time ahnialates the future he just lived. It is then as if it had never occured.


 * All Transport is physical. Link's body is literally ripped from the spacetime spectrum and sent back in time to the Dawn of the First Day. He will appear in the past in the exact state he was in when he played the Song of Time, carrying all his items with him. However, he "replaces" his past self upon arrival, preventing more than one Link from existing simultaneously.


 * When Link journey's to the future, he simply stands in one spot for a number of hours. There is very little magic involved here, no changes occur besides those which would naturally happen over such a period. One could technically say that this is not time travel at all, but, rather, a method of accelerating time.


 * Certian MM gameplay mechanics, such as chnage in the contents of chests, seem to work against this nature of time. As these mecahnics are always seperate from the main storyline, they are considered to have no bearing on timeline theory. [Again, see the "If It's Not Important to the Plot, Assume It Doesn't Happen" principle.]

OoA Travel

Mutable

FSA Travel


 * Time is mutable. Travel is FSA is nothing more than a way for incompetent players to make up for their past mistakes.


 * All Transport is physical. The Links moves as wholes between the two time periods as entire entities, carrying their items with them. However, they "replace" past selves upon arrival, preventing more than four Links from existing simultaneously.


 * There is no Future Travel in FSA.


 * Past Travel in FSA seems to mirror that of MM.

Time Related Arguments
Is the Sacred Realm Timeless?

It is very often suggested that the Sacred Realm either exists outside of Hyrule's Timeline or is entirely timeless in itself. It is argued that, if this is the case, Ganon's sealing at the end of OoT would somehow extend into the past and alter history, sparing history from him altogether.

There is another school of thought that believes that the Realm's "timelessness" merely extends to its having no plane of "time" as we know it in and of itself. They support this idea by citing the fact that Ganon is often said to have been sealed within the Realm for decades--even centuries--without seeming to noticeably age. This has no real effect on the timeline, but serves as a way to describe Ganon's seemingly timeless state while sealed there.

Dissenters quickly point out that Link ages seven years in the Sacred Realm (supporting that it is temporal) and that seven years passed simultaneously in Hyrule (supporting that there is no difference in their "times"). It is also suggested that the concept of "timelessness" is beyond human imagination, inherently unknowable, and completely irrelevant.

Traditionally, it is a quick yet reoccurring argument. A new theorist will suggest the idea, and will be so steadfastly opposed that he quickly withdraws.

Is OoT Travel Explainable

Can Time Travel Mechanics Be Inducted?

Common Points of Debate
Beyond these simple arcs, the amount of helpful canon begins to decrease. At this point, disagreements inevitably arise between various theorists who have naturally formed differing interpretations of the small amount of "truth" they have to work with.

Four Swords Related Arguments
Nintendo went out on a rather interesting tangent when they expanded the multiplayer mini-game featured in 2002's ALttP GBA release. The styles and storylines of the Four Swords games were so different from the conventional Zelda that, at first, many theorists did not accept them as a true part of the storyline. Nintendo has since confirmed their place, but the controversy continues.

Where is FS placed in relation to OoT and FSA?

For obvious reasons, FS has many stylistic elements that mirror those of TWW (the principal Zelda of the generation) and ALttP (with which it shares a cartridge). Despite this, the game contains no story elements whatsoever that would enable a theorist to place it in the timeline.

Aonuma temporarily solved this problem in a 2004 GamePro interview (prior to the release of FSA and TMC) when he stated that Nintendo was "thinking of [this game] as the oldest tale in the Zelda Timeline". This was a simple and concrete answer, which was, of course, too good to be true.

When FSA was released later that year a dilemma was created. It was both chronologically after OoT AND (apparently) the direct sequel to FS. If FS occurred only a few short years before FSA, and featured the same incarnation of Link, then it would have to occur later in the timeline, after OoT, thus making Aonuma's previous statement incorrect.

Theorists are now forced to decide what is truer; a possibly outdated expression of developer intent, or their own logical conclusions.

Where is TMC placed in relation to OoT?

The FS argument became doubly conflicted with the release of TMC, which was a very obvious prequel to FS. Theorists maintaining that FS was an "older" tale then OoT now placed TMC at the very beginning of their timeline, those theorists in opposition to this cited TMC images showing a flooded world and that facts that Humans (in general) were the dominant race of TMC, and that were it truly prior to OoT, would have been much more Hylian focused.

In the end, arguers were again stuck debating principles. What was more important: A developer's quote or contrary canonical evidence?

Is FSA the prequel to ALttP?

Perhaps one of the most controversial debates is that of FSA ' s placement and its connections to other games, such as FS. Though it is not stated outright that FSA is a direct sequel to FS, FSA ' s backstory retells the events of FS and its backstory as if they were directly related, though some retain skepticism over this (partly due to the aforementioned Aonuma interview).

Of more importance, however, is its alleged connection to ALttP. Supporters of this connection cite similarities between the geography of both games, common themes such as rescuing the maidens, the role of the Knights of Hyrule, the appearance of the Dark World, and the presence of a Dark Mirror (speculated to be the Magic Mirror used to teleport back from the Dark World in ALttP), and Ganon's Magic Trident. Ganon also makes an appearance here, meaning this game must take place after OoT, and by association, so could FS (if indeed it is FSA's prequel). These all lend themselves to suggesting a link between the Four Sword arc and the pre-OoT games.

On the other hand, there are those who claim there are problems with the connection. For instance, in the end, Ganon is sealed in the Four Sword, a condition not present in any other Zelda game. This situation lends itself to speculation so as to lead into ALttP, such as claims that the Four Sword Shrine is somehow connected with the Sacred Realm. However, that would mean FSA also had something to do with Ganon's acquisition of the Triforce pre-ALttP, which has led some to suggest FSA may be the Seal War, part of the Seal War, or simply another major event in between (such as the "demon war" spoken of in the Japanese version of ALttP), depending on one's view on OoT as the Seal War. Of course, any theory has to take into account the as-of-yet-undepicted escape of Ganon from the Four Sword seal in order to explain his reappearance in Hyrule, so all speculation is balanced on an even keel. Despite all this, some have ceased to bother trying to figure out the connection, and have opted to leave the gap open as a plot-hole, until a future Four Swords game clears things up.

Hand Held Related Arguments
Non-console Zelda games have never garnered the attention or prestige of their home based cousins. Miyamoto himself has lamented that LA, OoS and OoA lack any grand connection to the timeline as a whole. Theses games are not only difficult to place, but also somewhat irrelevant. Still, in the meticulous world of timeline theorists, no detail goes unargued.

Is LA the sequel to the Oracles?

When a full Oracle Series Linked Game is completed, the credits end with a shot of Link sailing away from the land in a one-man sailboat. The opening LA scene showcases Link battling a storm in a similar boat. Most fans are quick to correlate these events and conclude that LA is the sequel to the Oracle Series.

More traditional theorists argue that LA was at release, is now, and will always be the sequel to ALttP. To support this claim, they use quotes from the Oracle games to show that that Link has never met Zelda and, therefore, cannot be ALttP Link. The argument continues that LA directly references ALttP with its backstory and boss battles, and must contain the same Link.

At this point, Oracle-LA supporters must either reject their theory or sever the traditional ALttP-LA connection. This is rare, as such a theorist must hold that LA ' s manual has been "retconned" and is no longer perfect canon.

Can there be a perfect Oracle placement?

For a particular spot in the timeline to possibly accommodate the Oracle series, it must only meet 2 conditions: Ganon must be dead, and the Triforce must be whole in Hyrule. This occurs at least twice in the series.

OoX may occur shortly after AoL. Both involve an enemy effort to resurrect a dead Ganon and AoL ends with the reuniting of the Triforce.

OoX may occur shortly after ALttP. They share stylistic elements, similar items, and ALttP easily meets the "Dead Ganon, Whole Triforce" condition.

OoX may even occur shortly after TWW, as it too ends with a dead Antagonist and a whole Triforce. This idea, however, has little support amongst theorists as it requires speculation on the Triforce's resting place post TWW.

At the moment, there is no "perfect" place for the Oracles, and most theorists are happy to let it be ambiguously "sometime after ALttP".

OoT/MM Related Arguments
Time travel is a principle element of Fifth Generation Zelda, factoring in 3 of its 4 games. In developing the game mechanics for OoT, MM, and OoA, Nintendo was far more considered with making the mechanics fun and interesting than being scientifically sound (or even consistent).

Attempts to logic out the uncanny mechanics of Time in the Zelda series have been moderately successful, but the various implications of these conclusions have made the OoT/MM connection the most hotly (and most commonly) debated timeline topic:

Does Zelda send Link through time at OoT ' s end?

--How Best To Explain The Ending of OoT From a Single-Timeline Perspective--

At the end of the game, Zelda gives Link the following directive: "You must lay the Master Sword to rest and close the Door of Time. However, by doing this, the road between times will be closed." A simple reading of this tells us that Link must actually lay the Master Sword to rest (by returning it to the pedestal) and actually close the Door of Time (likely by removing the Spiritual Stones from the altar). She then makes the following request: That Link give the Ocarina to her, because she can use it to return him to his original time. Most interpret this to mean that Zelda uses the Ocarina of Time to send Link back in time.

However, a closer examination of this interpretation reveals a few problems--if Zelda sends Link to the past with the Ocarina of Time: 1) Link cannot lay the Master Sword to rest if he is already in the past. 2) If Link closes the Door of Time in the past, the events of OoT cannot take place, as they require that it be open. 3) Link's trip back in time at the end of OoT behaves like Master Sword travel, not Ocarina travel (at least, not the brand of Ocarina travel seen in MM).

So what exactly is Zelda's purpose in using the Ocarina of Time? Look closely at the quote. It is her role as a Sage--not the Ocarina's inherent power--that is going to allow him to return to his original time. Looking at the power of the Sages throughout the rest of the series, we see that it is most often used in the context of adding some power to the Hero's power (TWW, ALttP and OoT). It is certainly arguable that Zelda is not using the Ocarina of Time to send Link back in time, but, rather, to "add her might to his own." Looking now at TWW, we see how exactly the Sages go about using their power to help the Hero--they infuse the Master Sword with power. So, what is the purpose of Zelda's use of the Ocarina of Time: it allows Link to use the Master Sword to "return to his original time."

Because we see the "warping light" when Zelda sends Link back in time, we can deduce that what Zelda did has a warping effect similar to what we see after the bosses. Link is probably warped to the Temple of Time to carry out Zelda's orders. It's also reasonable to guess that Link might not have carried them out in the order that Zelda gave them to him. He would have to have first closed the Door of Time (he's still in the future--the Door will be closed from this point forward), then, while he was inside it (still in the future), he replaces the Master Sword and returns to the past. Because of Zelda's power as a Sage, this time he returned to his "original time", before he ever pulled the Master Sword.

This turns out to be more purposeful in explaining why the Door had to be closed. If the Door is closed by Link at a point after Ganon is defeated, the "road between times" is now closed, and the events of OoT cannot be tampered with--period.

This actually explains the fact that we seem to see different results the first and last times that Link travels through time. When Link appears in the future for the first time, he is not standing above the Pedestal with the sword raised above his head. This is because, when Link appears in the future for the first time, he is not traveling to a point in time at which he has already replaced the Master Sword. The pose we see each subsequent time we travel to the future is the pose he would have taken just before replacing the sword--he stands with it above his head.

When he travels in the future--one of the following things occurs: 1) he is traveling to the precise moment at which he replaced the Master Sword in the future; 2) he is traveling exactly seven years into the future again

The same can be applied to the past--he travels back to either: 1) the precise moment at which he drew the Master Sword the first time 2) exactly seven years into the past. (**Though it doesn't really matter which explanation you choose, erring to #1 in both cases makes for cleaner time travel, even though the day/night gameplay mechanic defies this. But, again, see the "if it's not important to the plot, assume it doesn't happen" principle.**)

And, in the end, when he travels back to the past, he travels back completely, to a point just before he ever took the Master Sword, and so obviously he will not be standing over it in that same way (similar to his first trip into the future).

How might a Single Timeline work?

How might a Double Timeline work?

ALttP/TWW Related Arguments
Both ALttP and TWW can be placed, with little doubt, a number of centuries after OoT, but there is hardly any direct connection between the games themselves. Which comes first? How can both relationships be preserved? What has been changed by the release of FSA? This is the staging ground for the most brutal, least productive debate in the timeline. A controversy that most theorists have given up on. Is the answer even out there?

Could Hyrule ever recover from the flood?

This is a relatively new subject of debate, as far as timeline theorizing goes. Up until recently, it was almost universally accepted that OoT and ALttP were undeniably linked, with OoT perhaps serving as a retelling or "retconning" of the Seal War legend in ALttP. Upon TWW ' s release, however, this connection was largely put into doubt. After all, in TWW's ending, Hyrule is completely washed away, apparently for good. This led many to speculate that perhaps TWW is meant to be the last game in the timeline. This suggestion has largely been debunked, however, as TWW retains very strong ties to OoT (though connections to TP may also be present, unbeknownst to the general public). There is also Aonuma's word on the subject, who went on the record as saying TWW takes place hundreds of years after OoT, not mentioning other games.

With TWW separating OoT and ALttP, theorists came up with several suggestions. Some claimed the sea waters eventually receded, or the mountain tops came together, as evidenced by FSA ' s overworld map featuring a coast line not seen in either OoT or ALttP. Both of these theories are supported by a quote from the Deku Tree, which describes a "single island" realm as his biggest ambition, and the purpose for the spreading of the forests across the Sea. Another theory claims Link and Zelda succeeded in finding another land similar to the Hyrule of old, and called it Hyrule as well. Both of these theories have their fair share of criticism, however, as some find it unlikely that, whether the old Hyrule came back or a new one was founded, the locations and their names, geography, and the legends would all remain largely intact. As a result, these skeptics have either settled for leaving the issue alone until it's cleared up, or went with a Double Timeline that leaves TWW and PH as the last games in one timeline, with the rest of the games, including ALttP, in the other.

If indeed Hyrule is destined to rise again, it will not be readily apparent until at least PH. However, even that has been put into question, as Aonuma promises PH to be a side story of sorts, and will not really continue TWW's story. In fact, he has gone so far as to say PH may be the first of a sub-series on the Nintendo DS. So, if Nintendo does have plans to bring back Hyrule, it might not be for a while. Of course, we also heard word about a Four Swords sub-series in the planning for the DS, so this may be the beginning of that. Only time will tell.

Does ALttP ' s backstory reference more than one event?

Does ALttP ' s backstory reference OoT?

Of all the tales spoken of in ALttP ' s manual, one of the most heavily scrutinized and debated is that of the Seal War. This legend tells of Ganondorf the Thief's accidental entry into the Sacred Realm, followed immediately by him laying claim to the Triforce, and becoming Ganon, the Demon King, which further resulted in transforming the Sacred Realm into the Dark World. The legend then goes on to relate Ganon's invasion of Hyrule (whether it was his minions, his evil power, or Ganon himself that invaded is still up for debate), to which the King of Hyrule responded by calling upon the Knights of Hyrule and the seven Sages. It is said the Knights perished during the invasion so as to give time to the Sages to cast a seal on the entrance to the Dark World, sealing Ganon within.

This legend, to many, bears an uncanny resemblance to the events of OoT, and not without reason. Sometime before OoT ' s release, an interview with several developers involved with the game's creation were quoted as saying OoT ' s story is not really original, and that it's meant to be a representation of ALttP's Seal War. Miyamoto also mentioned that Ganondorf in OoT is the same Ganon we see in ALttP. Though even back then some differences were apparent between the Seal War and OoT, it was universally agreed, at least as far as creator intentions went, that OoT was meant to be a retelling of ALttP ' s seal war at best. Even skeptics agreed that if anything, they at least drew much inspiration from that legend to create OoT ' s story.

During this time, before later arguments spawned by OoT ' s time travel mechanics, TWW ' s flood, and FSA ' s sealing of Ganon were brought up, it was easy to see why OoT made a great prequel to ALttP. OoT marked what seemed to be Ganondorf's first appearance and rise to power, as well as his sealing, during which he swears to exterminate the descendants of Link, Zelda, and the Sages, a clear allusion to ALttP. Another characteristic of OoT that suggests its status as a prequel was the prominence of the Hylian race throughout the game, which is said to have diminished by ALttP ' s time in said game. It also appeared to be the first time the Master Sword and the Triforce were laid hands on. The whole game, storyline-wise, seemed like an elaborate effort to set-up for ALttP. Any differences between the Seal War and OoT were chalked up to be due to the creators' creative freedom, and perhaps an effort to "retcon" the Seal War as the events of OoT.

However, a big problem with this connection, an increasingly large number of people argue, lies within those differences. Though the core result between both events is largely the same (Ganon is sealed in the Sacred Realm by seven Sages), the details sometimes don't match up; some even seem to contradict one another. An often-debated example deals with the Triforce. In ALttP ' s Seal War account, it is assumed Ganon gained the whole Triforce, though arguments have been made that suggest he may not have gotten it all at once. The description depicts him making a wish, but never says whether the wish was granted, just that evil power began flowing into Hyrule from the Golden Land. In OoT, he only gets the Triforce of Power (which he remains with until TWW, where he completes the Triforce, but does not get to wish on it). Then there is the actual battle against Ganon himself. In the Seal War, the Knights of Hyrule protected the Royal Palace, which is somewhat suggested to have happened while the Sages formed the seal, while in OoT, the Royal Palace has already been destroyed and replaced with Ganon's Tower by the time the Sages cast their seal. It could be argued, however the battle in which the Knights perished took place before Link awakened from his slumber. Lastly, there is the Master Sword, which is mentioned in ALttP ' s manual, but is never given to a hero, unlike in OoT. Given the Sageless retelling of OoT's events in the introduction to TWW, however, this may simply be shrugged off as a similarly incomplete retelling of the casting of the seal, especially given the lack of detail in general surrounding the sealing itself as portrayed in the manual.

Whether the OoT-ALttP connection holds water to this day is a subject of intense arguments that can last for days at a time. Skeptics of the connection rarely hesitate to bring up unmatching details between both accounts of the event to justify their views, with more conservative theorists defending it, stating that despite the differences, the Seal War and OoT are too similar to be different events. And that's not taking into account TWW and FSA, which have proven to add even greater headaches into the process of preserving the connection.

Does ALttP ' s backstory reference FSA?

Curiously enough, the "Seal War" mentioned in ALttP ' s backstory is never referred to by name within the context of ALttP itself. While it has been generally accepted that the introduction of ALttP, which mentions the key events that surround the Seal War--1) the door to the Golden Land being discovered and opened; 2) evil power flowing from the Golden Land; 3) the door to the Golden Land being sealed--the references to the "war with the demons" (pure translation from the Japanese version) make no mention of the Golden Land, Triforce, or Ganon at all. They do, however, reference Seven Sages, magic portals to the Dark World, and the extermination of the Knights of Hyrule. There is some degree of contrast to be had, here, because the Seal War story mentions only one doorway to the Sacred Realm-turned-Dark World, while the demon war story mentions multiple magic portals.

A few theorists have decided that, since FSA includes these three elements--seven Maidens who can serve the purpose of sealing, portals to [a] Dark World, and the extermination of the Knights of Hyrule--FSA can actually assume the role of "demon war". Of course, how it is that Ganon makes his way from the Four Sword seal into the Golden Land to prepare for ALttP is a matter in question, but in a pre-ALttP placement of FSA, this is inevitable. It is important to note that those who believe that FSA represents the demon war do not believe that there was any war or Sages' Seal necessary for Ganon to be stuck in the Sacred Realm in ALttP, because the game itself says that after he rediscovered the Sacred Realm, he couldn't get back to the Light World.

Could TP bring a solution?

TP is truly a unique Zelda game in many respects, one of which includes its decisive placement in the overall timeline, a matter often ignored in older games. For instance, in the past, most other games have been loosely placed by the creators based on one other game (such as FSA taking place sometime after FS or TWW placing centuries after OoT), or were not even placed at all (As is the case with OoA/OoS). Though some game placements have been determined to go in a certain order beyond a shadow of a doubt (such as the Four Sword series), they were nevertheless the products of theorists, rather than the creators.

TP, however, marks the first time a Zelda game has been specifically placed between two other games (it has been confirmed and reconfirmed to place decades after OoT, but a long time before TWW). While some people do not consider this placement significant, others argue that this placement could have been intentional so as to provide clarification to several issues. This line of thought stems from interviews with Aonuma and Bill Trinen (a member of NoA's localization team), both of whom state interest in making sense of the timeline through future games.

Indeed, many of the timeline's greatest hurdles involve OoT ' s ambiguous and unclear ending, and TWW ' s cause for the flooding of Hyrule, which have bred ceaseless arguments regarding whether a single or double timeline is correct, and should a double timeline be the case, which timeline the Four Sword series and the older games follow. Some theorists thus claim TP is in a prime position to clear up these issues, and help determine once and for all the true direction the timeline is taking (it should be noted the other issue that would show the timeline's current direction involves whether Hyrule unfloods or not after TWW). One such way the game would go about achieving this is by including much clearer references to OoT throughout the game than TWW did (which would be plausible, given the game's proximity to OoT), while either ending with the flood spoken of in TWW, or at least setting up for it.

Already, elements suggesting a close relationship to OoT such as the appearance of the Master Sword, a very similar shield design, and the return of the Gorons have all been shown. As for TWW, it has been revealed that Ganon will indeed appear in the game, and as a result, it is speculated the Twilight Realm may actually be his evil power leaking into Hyrule, which may be the precourse of his eventual escape as told in TWW s introduction. However, it remains to be seen whether this Link will have any connection to the Heroes of Time and Wind, as well as whether we will find out what truly happened to the Hero of Time after MM, if the game figures into TP at all.

Popular Timelines
Despite all the hoopla, most Zelda fans only have a passing interest in the timeline. They care not for the endless debates, and wonder only after the final product, or, in this case, products:

Zelda Universe Lines
A large majority of ZU theorists (and other users with a general interest) support a universal Single timeline.

The United Wisemen's Theory

OoT/MM - TP - TWW/PH - TMC - FS/FSA - ALttP/(KnS)/LA - (OoS/OoA) - LoZ/AoL - (OoS/OoA)

NOTE: One of the remaining points of debate regarding placement is the placement of the Oracle games. By and large, the Wise Men have agreed that the Oracle games should be placed after LA, but some newly-scrutinized storyline cues have brought its placement back into question.

The Late-Placed TWW Theory

OoT/MM - TP - ALttP/Oracles/Link's Awakening - TWW/PH - LoZAoL

The Late-Placed TWW theory draws largely from TWW as the most recent reflection of the developer's ideas. The placement of the FS trilogy is not yet decided.

silver arrow's split / single Ganon theory

TMC - OoT/MM - FS/FSA - ALttP/LA/KnS - OoS/OoA - LoZ/AoL/ZG&W

TMC - OoT - TP - TWW/PH

Legends Alliance Lines
The theorists of the Legends Alliance forums are by far the web's most diverse. They are renowned for their near universal acceptance of Kodai No Sekiban and their strong belief that FSA cannot be AlttP ' s prequel. A few of the unique theories that can be seen in those parts include:

Late FSA theories

"Child" Line: (TMC) - OoT/MM - ALttP/(LA)/KnS - OoS/OoA(/LA) - (TMC) - FS/FSA - LoZ-AoL

"Adult" Line: TMC - OoT - TP - TWW/PH

GameFAQs Lines
The GameFAQs Twilight Princess board is arguably the host for more timeline discussion then any other internet forum. A long history of debate has resulted in a wide variety of opinions among the users, including support of the Wisemen's theory and animosity towards the general idea of a perfect timeline. The two theories listed in the board's timeline FAQ are:

Darken Poltergeist's (DP) Theory

"Child" Line: (TMC) - OoT/MM - (TMC) - FS/FSA - ALttP/LA - (OoA)/(OoS) - LoZ/AoL - (OoA)/(OoS)

"Adult" Line: (TMC) - OoT - TP - TWW/PH

Note: TMC's and OoA/OoS's placements are, according to the creator of this theory, too ambiguous to have a definite place, hence the parentheses.

The TripleEspresso9/Impossible II (TEI) Theory

"Child" Line: TMC - FS - OoT/MM

"Adult" Line: TMC - FS - OoT - TP - TWW/PH - ALttP/LA - OoA/OoS - LoZ/AoL

Other Theories
Other, unique theories gathered from across the web or added to the wiki.