Lore talk:Fourth Era

Archives
Archive 1: May 2008 - Dec 2011

Titus Mede II's Assassination

Just a question: since it is possible (in fact, there's a quest for it) to destroy the Dark Brotherhood, should it be included in the timeline that Titus Mede II was assassinated?128.146.28.80 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it should not be in there, and multiple users have removed it, but someone apparently keeps putting it back in. 68.51.224.67 07:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How exactly did we handle the various faction storylines in Oblivion concerning their affects on the world? Certainly the developers will not take any of this into account, as before jumping into the future erases the past actions of the player. As much as I hate to admit it, having saved Winterhold and wiped out the Dark Brotherhood, stopping Ancando is as legitamate an action in the eyes of history as killing the Emperor. As such, not only should the Dark Brotherhood story stay but we should also include the Companions brief as well. The Emperor is old, he had at most a decade left in his old bones - his death could have come at any time. That is what the developers will take into account and not the manner of his death. --Cyrus Amell 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We wrote a bit about all the major factions, the Dark Brotherhood destroy one should not be listed because it does not belong to a major faction. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 15:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

With previous in-game events, all events are assumed to have happened. So unless TESVI says that the Emperor wasn't assassinated, it is to be assumed that he was. As for the possible destruction of the Dark Brotherhood, it will likely be noted as a "conflicting report" or something on the relevant article. --Legoless 15:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the other factions have a branching quest in which the player can explicitly oppose them. The Dragonborn wiping the Brotherhood is an equally valid player choice as the Emperor dying; it should be left out until confirmed by a later source. 24.143.235.188 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken out. Quite similarly to the Civil War questline in which a victory for either Stormcloaks OR the Imperial Legion can be the result of the player's actions, the Dragonborn CAN either wipe out the Brotherhood or follow the questline. It's either or, isn't it? In Oblivion, we assume the PC did all in-game events, but in Skyrim, the destruction of the Dark Brotherhood IS ALSO an in-game event. Since the two conflict, it should be removed until confirmed. Rath101 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We put all ends of major factions down, so they should all stay. Look back through previous Era's, and look at where the games are and you can see entries for the Mages Guild, the Fighters Guild and the Dark Brotherhood and other such sized factions. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 17:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My point is that the destruction of teh Dark Brotherhood IS AN EQUALLY VALID end to the faction. There are no alternate faction endings for the Fighter's Guild, Mages Guild, etc. In the same line of thinking, the reason why we don't put the victor of the Civil War in the timeline is because a Stormcloak or Imperial victory is equally valid, the destruction of the DB and its rise are also equally valid quests. Rath101 17:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) And my point was major factions, e.g. Fighters, Mages, DB and Thieves are the main factions. Anything outside of these is generally fairly stand alone. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but its destruction (while certainly not part of the main questline for the faction per se) is still a major option in regards to it, wouldn't you say? All things considered, no other major faction in any previous game has ever been involved in a quest that allows the player to actually destroy it. The two options are exclusive of each other, something that is unprecedented as far as I know when it comes to the game's major factions. Hence, I think this should be taken into reconsideration. Rath101 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In Oblivion there was the option to kill Lucien when you first met him which would result in a journal entry concluding that you now had no way of contacting the Dark Brotherhood. Yet in Skyrim, it is strongly hinted at that the hero from Oblivion did take part in the Dark Brotherhood faction questline. So the endings aren't all necessarily valid, and I'm betting that Bethesda will make the Skyrim DB questline canon while the destroy option will be swept under the rug.--Tovenam 01:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Old discussion, but I agree with Rath101, and I don't think we should say (yet) that Titus Mede II was assassinated. The operating assumption is that the player pursues the faction questlines, and if there are no divergent conclusions, all major events therein may be considered accurate and verifiable information. However, Skyrim's Dark Brotherhood has a branching questline and, depending on the player's choice, Titus Mede II may or may not be assassinated. It's not a "non-starter" option like killing Lucien LaChance in Oblivion; rather, destroying the dark brotherhood (i.e., not killing the emperor) is a legitimate, alternative player choice regarding how to complete the questline. At least, that's my understanding; I haven't finished the questline personally. To use Fallout: New Vegas for comparison, presuming the Dovahkiin kills Titus Mede II is akin to presuming that the Courier kills Mr. House. We simply can't say what happened until Bethesda establishes an "official" version in subsequent games. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls storylines are written to be forward-compatible. You can never do anything that will directly invalidate major events (for example you can't choose to help Alduin destroy the world) and Bethesda doesn't like to cherry-pick individual choices as canon (see Daggerfall). Bearing that in mind, the most likely scenario is that Titus Mede II is assassinated whether or not the Dovahkiin is actually responsible for it; wiping out the Dark Brotherhood doesn't make the conspirators give up but rather just forces them to find another way instead. In the future the fact of his death won't be disputed but rather the manner of it, with some claiming that it was the Dark Brotherhood and others dismissing that idea as a crackpot conspiracy theory - all the bases are covered either way, and it's consistent with Bethesda's MO. If you look closely you'll see how they've probably roadmapped the war storyline to work out the same with either an Imperial or Stormcloak victory too, but since we haven't seen the DLC I think it's a bit too speculative to call it just yet. 206.76.160.254 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I'm going to take it down: There is a line between lore-Canon and player-Canon. The Main quest is meant to be canonical, that's why it's there. The guild paths are meant as choice careerpaths based on what you want your playstyle to be. It doesn't make sense to have guild outcomes, because guilds are optional, and assumed paths based on your character. Titus was assassinated because the player chose to. What if the player didn't? True it works that way in Main Quest, but like I said, Main quest is made to be canonical. All Player-guild accomplishments should be taken down from the timeline. --Yal 08:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please at least wait for some kind of response before removing large chunks of the page. It is standard to have game-related events on lore pages. The player has the option to never do anything in-game, but that doesn't invalidate the storylines. This discussion deals with conflicting events (multiple choice paths), not the validity of in-game events. --Legoless 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty rash last night, and wasn't considering it at all, but probably got carried away. Apologies deeply and thank you for reverting. True the player doesn't have to do ANYTHING. But, I don't think it makes much sense for a timeline to say "Dovahkiin was head of the Thieve's guild, and assassinated Emperor w/ the Dark Brotherhood, and was also a werewolf and master of the Companions, and was Archmage of the College of Winterhold". Because just as much as you can say "What if a player DID do all that?", you can say "Chances are, one character didn't do all that". And it makes sense not to. Maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine, but we might as well put every single quest on the timeline if we're going by this standard. The only thing I believe should be on this is the main quest. The player begins as Dovahkiin and always will be, so he is instantly put into the canon which is the Main Quest. Though[change of heart]...on the other hand, an Elder Scrolls VI would most certainly put in that Titus II was assassinated, to tie in it's wide berth of predictability with storylines. They would also probably say Gentleman Jim was replaced as head of the Thieve's Guild in Morrowind...etc etc. It is cleverly worded I must say...not saying it was necessarily DOVAHKIIN who did all that...and I don't think Bethesda would ever necessarily point out that it was the PLAYER who was Archmange, etc etc. --Yal 04:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of all this jumble I just changed my mind :P However, *I do think that* we should not impose that it was the player necessarily who became Archmage, or Thieve's guild head, etc. Because I think Bethesda in future Elder Scrolls games would most certainly avoid using the name "Dovahkiin" who went about assassinating Titus, or werewolf of the companions. They would certainly include that Titus was assassinated, but they would leave it up to the player to let their imagination run wild with that one, whether they played the D. Brotherhood storyline (or any other guild) or not. If you catch my drift...I propose to keep the name "Dovahkiin" off of anything Guild or Faction-related on the timeline, instead impose that events were dealt by a member of the guild. This will keep it both a mystery, open to imagination for players in current and future TES games, and avoid fabricating canon. --Yal 04:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I do like what Minor Edits said though, about Emperor Titus II's assassination is as valid as the Courier killing Mr. House in FO:NV. We certainly don't know until it is canon, especially since it is sort of a divergent storyline. In my opinion though, TES is a lot more organized and I feel like Bethesda would say "Titus II was assassinated", whether it was Dovahkiin or not. I say keep it all up there. --Yal 04:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In short, I agree Legoless, I love it how it is. --Yal 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I disagree with keeping in the part about the emperor's assassination. If you destroy the Dark Brotherhood, then perhaps they didn't kill the emperor--it might end up being said that he was assassinated, or that he died mysteriously, or that nobody released details of his death. I think it would be notable that he dies, but not to say that the DB did it. That's the big thing--you can take two paths in this, and it's not about just not doing anything. Nor do I think it's notable that the Night Mother appoints a new Listener, as Cicero may have taken her to another province and not found a Listener for decades longer if the Falkreath Sanctuary were destroyed.

The rest of it should stay, I think, as that's a "do it or don't" situation. But this one is "do it or prevent it". Vely^{►Talk►Email} 21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Any movement on this at all? I still think that the entry needs to be removed or at least revised, and there don't seem to be many people defending it. I noticed a newcomer tried to correct it recently, but was reverted because Titus was "probably" assassinated. "Probably" doesn't quite cut it for me, and evidently it doesn't for Ginnygoat, either, because he/she hasn't tried to edit the site since. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still strongly defending its inclusion, but this discussion is finished as far as I'm concerned. Since it can't be agreed whether or not to include the conflicting events, we should follow the precedent set by other dubious pieces of lore, by leaving it as is and giving it as little depth as possible in lorespace, with both options covered. —Legoless (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (GMT)

It should say both that "Maro had ordered the destruction of the brotherhood in skyrim , later Titus Mede was assassinated on his boat, sources suggest it was caused by a remaining DB assassin, the empire may never know." Something like this, vague, and can have both ends indicated. --Winch1990 (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2013 (GMT)

That assumes he is dead. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:03, 29 January 2013 (GMT)

Just because the Dragonborn destroyes a heretical branch of the Dark Brotherhopod, it does not mean that it will not be featured in future events, or that the Emperor could not be killed. As long as the Night Mother is safe, the Brotherhood could always be remade. As for the death of the Emperor, just becuase the DB is not available, it doesn't mean that there are not other means of the event happening. He could die the same year in the Imperial City at the hands of his sycophants, Thalmor agents or Morag Tong assassins, or even Cicero, or some other Dark Brotherhood assasin, if Cicero were to be named Listener by the Night Mother (if other options become unavailable). The assasination is canon, it wil happen. How and when is irrelevant.— Unsigned comment by 94.60.42.18 (talk) at 17:23 on 2 February 2013‎

The destruction of most of the Dark Brotherhood is definite either way, because Babette and Cicero survive the destroy quest. — Unsigned comment by 98.237.20.106 (talk) at 23:36 on 29 April 2013

(←) "Most of the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim is destroyed". That is all the 4E 201 entry for the Dark Brotherhood can say, so that is all it should say. This "may" business doesn't belong in the UESP's timeline. That being said, I just don't care anymore. This is the longest-running conversation I can recall ever seeing on the wiki. As Legoless said five months ago, this is finished, and really, it was finished 6 months before that. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:25, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Just a note that I fixed the 4E201 Dark Brotherhood entry as best as I could. I do hope it is satisfactory (as I gave the entry uncertainty, since neither outcome is confirmed 'canon' yet). WintersetAltmer (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2014 (GMT)

I believe census agreed to leave it as-is. Adding completely contradicting alternate events isn't helpful on the timeline. —Legoless (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2014 (GMT)

I think Winterset is on the right track, though. Amaund will be seeking to assassinate Mede regardless of what happens to the Dark Brotherhood. Seems like a better way to frame the issue. I still find this note objectionable as-is. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 20:10, 27 June 2014 (GMT)

Just so long as the general census here is that the Emperor's assassination is not declared a "canon" event yet. For all we can claim to know now, the Emperor just dies of old age later on. WintersetAltmer (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (GMT)

Not sure whether somebody has already said it, but when the last dragonborn reads the elder scroll at the time wound, could that not possibly have caused another Dragon Break leading to multiple outcomes in the Dark Brotherhood, Volkihar Vampires, and other choice-based questlines? Possibility? — Unsigned comment by TheInfamousCuro (talk • contribs) at 18:17 on 18 February 2015 (GMT)

(←) We do not know what the current plans of the developers are. If they clearly confirm that Titus Mede II is alive/survived, then we would change the note. As of right now, to the best of our knowing, our current version is the best possible version we can have, based on existing policy. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:17, 18 February 2015 (GMT)

Cheydinhal Listener's Death

Though the Listener (PC) supposedly dies during the raid, this contradicts Sheogorath's dialogue in Skyrim revealing to the PC that he was the Champion of Cyrodiil (MQ of Shivering Isles), who was also the Listener of the Cheydinhal Dark Brotherhood... Not really a big issue, but it bugged me nonetheless, as most of this information was taken from a book, and the newest game in the series contradicts this. Any input? Mikeyy 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This was done in Cicero's lifetime, some hundred years after the Champion. It was a different Listener. (Eddie The Head 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Though I suppose that if your character was an Elf they would still be alive . . .

Yes, an elf theoretically could live as long, for Sheogorath to be alive though, he would have had to either pass on the mantle of Listener or Sheogorath manifested in the Champion and he became fully the Prince of Madness and retreated into the Isles. Then, afterwards the Night Mother would have had to appoint a new Listener to replace the missing one. That is my take one the events. His Immortal Majesty, Eric Snowmane 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying it confirms that the Champion was also the Listener, just that he was present at the time when all these major events were happening. Plus, as a Daedric Prince, he suddenly would've had a lot more insight into the affairs of petty mortals. I just consider it a nice reference to the events at the end of the Third Era, not the Champion surfacing and saying "I did all those things". Blue Ninja 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The listener mentioned in Cicero's journal is Alisanne Dupre, not the Champion of Cyrodiil. S/he's busy messing around in the Shivering Isles.--Tovenam 01:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dovakiin the new Harbinger and Archmage?

Hey, is there specific information that confirms Dovakiin is the new Harbinger and Archmage? Previous works steered clear of labelling the hero as the champion of multiple if any factions so I imagined it would be the same case with Skyrim. ~~~ long time reader first time talk pager - 24 December, 2011 — Unsigned comment by 98.165.101.123 (talk) at 18:19 on December 24, 2011

I agree with this. After all, it's how the timeline's organized when it comes to Oblivion's questlines, too. I'll make the changes. If anyone feels differently, they can always be reverted. Blue Ninja 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I undid my edits for now, as the consensus on the discussion mentioned above seems unclear. I made a few adjustments to writing too, so perhaps a few others can check it out in the page's history and see what they think. For now, I'll leave the original version as the current one. Blue Ninja 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to say that I always thought that it could be considered as extreme spoilers for others. Even though this IS a wiki, we shouldn't assume nobody cares if they are spoiled for Archmage/Harbinger on the timeline page. BUT that's not the big reason why I'm against it. Spoilers or not, even so, It relates to gameplay, not necessarily outside lore. If you catch my drift. True the events of the main quest should always be given out, but I think adding Dovakiin guild-specific info is not really appropriate for the timeline. If Mage's guild Dovakiin is up there, why not just put Thieve's guild, D. Brotherhood, and Companions Dovakiin up there too? It wouldn't make much sense I don't think. Because guild-play is kind of tailored for a character's playstyle, I don't think it should be considered canonical. Yeah, you could say main quest is, but I think the main quest is meant to be canonical, whereas the guild-quests are pretty much a player's choice of careerpath. The more I write about it, the more I am convinced we shouldn't have player guild accomplishments at all. I think there is a point where we have to draw the line between Tamriel-canon and Player-canon. I vote all Guild-specific accomplishments out of the timeline for this reason. I would be happy to talk about it though, but for everything I mentioned above, I feel very strongly about taking those entries down (For both Skyrim&Obliv). --Yal 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One could tehcnically be both. The College treats the Thu'um as separate branch of magic, and in fact, the hero can Join the College and complete many quests (Saarthal, RFevealing the Unseen, Containment, Staff of Magnus) with the help of The Voice. Also, being a battlemage or spellsword could justify why the hero would join these two institutions. — Unsigned comment by 94.60.42.18 (talk) at 17:29 on 2 February 2013‎

The issue isn't feasibility, it's more a matter of whether the choices the player can make with a faction questline are opposing or not. In the case of the College or the Companions, the player has a choice of becoming the leader of the faction or not becoming the leader. One choice doesn't preclude the other from being fulfilled by "some other hero". For the DB, however, the player can either lead it or destroy it. One precludes the possibility of the other occurring. IMO, that would require the wiki to wait until Bethesda puts out some other material that definitively sets canon.

As far as whether a faction is "minor" or "major", and thus deserves mention on the timeline, that's open for interpretation. --Xyzzy ^Talk 17:46, 2 February 2013 (GMT)

Possible Elsweyr Discrepancy

The page suggests that the Elsweyr Confederacy seceded from the Empire soon after the Oblivion Crisis. Is there a source for this claim? Because The Great War gives me the impression they remained a part of the Empire until 4E 115. Minor Edits 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Its uncited, but on Lore:Elsweyr#Politics, it says that Elsweyr left the Empire, but didn't break into the smaller kingdoms until the Thalmor accept them. ES^T•E•C 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Infernal City info, as it was put on the Elsweyr page a month after the book came out. Thanks. Minor Edits 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ocato assassination

Is there any real evidence that Ocato was assassinated by the Thalmor? If the only support is Rising Threat, I think that statement needs to be softened a bit. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Helgen

Last edit about Alduin and Helgen needs reverting. The civil war was already raging before Alduin showed up there.Temple-Zero 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Are you still not able to edit pages? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim begins?

I know it says later the dragonborn is revealed but should it be included at 4E 201 that the game Skyrim starts? I don't know if you include specific in game events in the timeline but just a thought. — Unsigned comment by Skylar1146 (talk • contribs) at 14:10 on June 7, 2012

We haven't been including that for any of the games because it's not an in-universe event, which is what the Lore namespace is dedicated to. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Queen Potema - moved from article

4E 201|Necromancers attempted to raise and bind Queen Potema's spirit.

*After the ritual was interrupted, the Wolf Queen's remains was sanctified and her spirit was banished.

I'm moving this here because I'm not sure this is worthy of a mention on this page. It doesn't seem momentous enough to list in a timeline of Fourth Era events, and it's already listed in the People section. --Xyzzy^Talk 03:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anything had happened, it would have been a pretty big deal. Since the player stops her return, it's not all that noteworthy. Still, it might deserve a mention as a minor event. —Legoless 14:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oblivion post main quest?

Wouldn't common sense dictate that, after completing the main quest in Oblivion, all in-game events should take place starting in 4E 0? Yet for some reason, the game still lists the events as taking place in the 5th century of the 3rd Era? If the 3rd Era is technically over by that point, why doesn't the in-game calendar register it as being part of the 4th Era? Schiffy (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (GMT)

This was likely an oversight. However, if I recall correctly, at no point is it explicitly stated in-game that the defeat of Mehrunes Dagon and the end of the Septim bloodline marks the beginning of the Fourth Era. Just like the Gregorian calendar, Year 0 wasn't identified as such until much later. • JA^T 00:41, 14 September 2012 (GMT)

An era starts when somebody important says it does. Ramen Cyrodill did it, Tiber Septim did it, and I assume Ocato declared the Fourth Era. However, he would never do this ingame, as it would break the lore for the next game. The exact time is just when Bethesda thinks it is best, not when every individual player finishes. The possibilities would be limitless.--Br3admax (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2012 (GMT)

In-game it keeps climbing in 3E 430s, because it would be impossible to put it on a proper timeline. To do that, you would have to push the game and force the player to act at specific times to follow the MQ. Canonically, the Third Era ended at the end of 433, however, if the player didn't finish the MQ within that time, at 3E 434/4E, there would still be a claimant to the Septim Throne, and the war would still continue. There wouldn't be a reason to close the Third Era. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 02:57, 14 September 2012 (GMT)

EDIT: And, Jak, I believe Martin, in the ending cutscene, states that the Third Era draws to a close. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 02:58, 14 September 2012 (GMT)

The End of Alduin

The article states "It is hinted that Alduin was not utterly destroyed and that his soul may exist to return at end times to devour the world."

I noticed there was no source. It would be that this is true but I don't remember it from my play troughs. Why do we think his soul still exists? — Unsigned comment by 131.156.211.13 (talk) at 15:37 on 15 October 2012‎

Because it wasn't devoured by the Dragonborn. The Nord heroes hint at it. —Legoless (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

The Dragonborn also discusses the fact that s/he did not absorb Alduin's soul with Arngeir, who speculates that Alduin will return at the end of the kalpa. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:15, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

The White-Gold Concordat

Is there any actual support from the lore supporting the assertion that the terms of the White-Gold Concordat grant "the Thalmor free rein to stamp out the worship of Talos throughout the Empire"? The only book source I can recall for the White-Gold Concordat is The Great War: A Concise Account of the Great War Between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion and it only says "The two most controversial terms of the Concordat were the banning of the worship of Talos and the cession of a large section of southern Hammerfell (most of what was already occupied by Aldmeri forces)."

The notion that the White-Gold Concordat grants the Thalmor unqualified free reign to do anything to enforce the ban on Talos worship doesn't seem likely regardless of what a lore source might state in any case and, if such a source exists it was probably meant as hyperbole. All treaties have conditions and limitations on the rights of the parties, even extremely lopsided ones.

I've read some claim that Elenwen's dialogue in Season Unending is a source for this assertion but that's easily refuted as Elenwen only states that she's at the peace conference to ensure that the terms of the White-Gold Concordat aren't violated which doesn't support a claim that the White-Gold Concordat authorizes the Thalmor to do anything regarding the enforcement of the terms. It simply explains why she is part of the Imperial caucus. The claim is further contradicted by the fact that you can dismiss her from the meeting which shouldn't be possible if she has the right to be there under authority granted by the White-Gold Concordat. So far I haven't found any NPC who explicitly states the scope of the authority the Aldmeri Dominion has to enforce compliance with the provision banning the worship of Talos within the borders of the Empire. While it's reasonable to infer that it does have some authority under the treaty in that regard based on what's observed in the game, it still requires conjecture to draw a conclusion as to the limits of that authority let alone to speculate that there are no limits. It's also self-evident that a term for a treaty will have means to ensure compliance otherwise the provision would be toothless. Perhaps the entry should read simply as follows:

"

4E 175 — The Great War ends with the White-Gold Concordat.

• The peace treaty between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion outlaws the worship of Talos throughout the Empire and cedes a large section of southern Hammerfell. Critics note that these terms are almost identical to the ultimatum that Titus II Mede rejected at the start of the war."

Alternatively, if something about the enforcement of the treaty should be included it might be better to dispense with hyperbole and describe it based on what's observable in the game:

"

4E 175 — The Great War ends with the White-Gold Concordat.

• The peace treaty between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion outlaws the worship of Talos throughout the Empire and cedes a large section of southern Hammerfell. Thalmor agents known as Justiciars are deployed throughout the Empire to ensure compliance with the ban on the worship of Talos. Critics note that these terms are almost identical to the ultimatum that Titus Mede II rejected at the start of the war."

--DagmarH (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (GMT)

The first two sources I'll give (dialogue from Ondolemar: "I lead the Justiciars. We are charged with enforcing the ban on Talos worship." and Lorcalin's Orders show that the Thalmor actively search out worshippers. The next two are quotes from opposing sides in the war, and if they agree on one thing, that's a very strong indicator to it's truthfulness, Delphine: "Also trampled on the sacred name of Talos, and gave the Thalmor free reign to stamp out Talos worship throughout the Empire." Thalmor Justicairs: "By Imperial Law banning Talos, we have the right to do whatever we want." Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:13, 28 November 2012 (GMT)

Titus Mede's ascension to Emperor and the Thalmor Coup in Summerset Isle

The timeline set forth on this page has Titus Mede's ascension to Emperor preceding the Thalmor coup in Summerset Isle. The date of the Thalmor coup is from the book the Great War. I'm presuming the date for Titus Mede's taking control of the Imperial City is from The Infernal City. In contrast in Volume IV of Rising Threat, Lathenil states that the Thalmor overthrew the Kings and Queens of Summerset Isle during the Stormcrown Interregnum. It seems like these sources as a whole seem to be contradicting one another on the sequence of events. Can anyone clarify or rectify this?. --DagmarH (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

From The Great War, "They capitalized on their success to seize total control in 4E 22." This to me says that they only took full control of the island at this time, while in the period before they only overthrew the government, but didn't take power for themselves. I tweaked the wording of the Summerset Isle entry to reflect this. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:35, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

Some of these things are not like the others...

In looking through the events of the Fourth Era, I noticed a major (IMO) discrepancy: there are many events from the Dragonborn expansion that have been added that seem trivial compared to all of the rest of the listed events. Examples:

• 4E 130 — Lleril Morvayn uses his personal wealth to repair the Bulwark, a barricade which protects Raven Rock from ash storms.

• 4E 181 — The ebony mines of Raven Rock are completely exhausted, and the colony turns to hunting and fishing for sustenance.

• The ebony mines of Raven Rock reopen after an investigation reveals and old Draug crypt and large amounts of ebony.

Are these entries really noteworthy, especially when compared to all of the wars, natural disasters, and political upheaval that make up the vast majority of this article? --Xyzzy ^Talk 23:33, 11 July 2013 (GMT)

No, they should all be removed. Something like, the dovakiin defeats the first dragonborn, that could be on there, but the other things.... yeah, save that for the relevant articles. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

The relevant articles would link back here, and ideally, there should be entry for them to link to. I think our timeline should be pretty detailed; thats precisely why we provide an option for major events, to filter out entries like this if people don't want to see them. These are not major events, but they should still be here. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:59, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Then shouldn't we had in similar entries from the games/other DLC? It just seems strange that this DLC is the only one with such detailed entries. We don't have entries on the mine in skyrim reopening do we? Jeancey (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Add any significant historical events that you wish, although I can't see Hearthfire having much value in lore. —Legoless (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I disagree with removing these minor dates. A very detailed timeline is what people come here for, and as ME said, it very useful when articles link back here. Personally I like seeing all the events - major and minor - that happened around a particular date. The option for major/minor events is sufficient for hiding minor events. Why not create the most comprehensive timeline available? --Jimeee (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Hearthfire had as much lore as horse armor did :). I was thinking more, Dawnguard, The small housing DLC in oblivion, Firemoth. Those DLCs which are smaller and don't really get much focus. For instance, the ending of significant pirate raids around Anvil could be important, as could the resumption of said raids. I'm not against adding things, I just think we need to be thorough. Jeancey (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Year 0?!

Year 0 is a completely nonsense. In Tamriel history, at real world too, "year 0" is a common misconception without logical justification. First year of a decade is the year 1 and the final is the year 10... and consequently first year of the third century is the year 201, the first year at 17 millenium is the year 16001. The years 300 or 20 or 1600 are the FINAL year of base-ten period (decade, century or millenium). The first year of our actual decade was the 2011, NOT the 2010... and so on. I will change all this stuff at the wiki.

--Illo (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a year 0 mentioned in universe though? If it is then I don't really see how we can change all the dates from the official source. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Year zero is correct in Tamriel. I've reverted these unsourced changes. —Legoless (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In "Before the Ages of Man" is just mentioned the year 1E 0, but wehere is the source for 4E 0? The second era has no year zero. --217.113.186.50 08:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume, in the case of the Fourth Era, that 4E 0 is equivalent to 3E 433. The Oblivion Crisis occurs in 3E 433, and 4E 0 starts at the end of the Crisis, which is likely before the end of (calendar year) 433. There's no source one way or the other about the existence of 4E 0, by that's the way I like to look at it. --Enodoc (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Year 0 in Tamriel cannot be compared to the anything in real life, as the years in Tamriel are of an Era (eg the 300th year of the era), not calendar years. Year "0" is the time between a mid-year New Era announcement and the end of the calendar year (ie not full years, just as the last year of the previous era is not a full year), when year 1 of the new era begins. This is especially noticeable with the beginning of the Second Era as Versidue-Shaie pre-announces the Era to coincide with the start of the next calendar year, forgoing the need for a year "0" of the Second Era. Thus the beginning of the 4th Era, announced upon Martin's sacrifice, not at the start of the next calendar year, necessitates that a year 0 exist, to bridge the gap until year 1 begins. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Night of Green Fire

Are we sure that it took place in 4E 42 as the Aldmeri Dominion were Isolationist at that point so would be unlikely to do an attack but in 4E 142 (which with the Legate's presumptive age could make more sense) they were gearing up to start a full scale war with the empire and that would make sense for setting the stage for a war. — Unsigned comment by 212.69.50.7 (talk) at 16:52 on 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack on the Empire, the Dominion was killing their own dissidents. Besides, Fasendil is an Altmer, a century makes no difference in terms of his age. —Legoless (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Markarth Incidents unspecified date

I've noticed that the year the Markarth Incident occurs is not present in the game, we know it happened sometime between 4e181 when the Native Uprising in Markarth was put down and 4e201 the beginning of Skyrim, but no specific date. How would this be entered on the Lore:Fourth Era page, would it be tacked on to the last entry in the time line that we know or would it be left out altogether?Thorus (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bear of Markarth gives specific dates: 4E 174 for the Reachmen uprising and 4E 176 for the Markarth incident, which marked an end of their short-lived independence. No source mentions 181 anywhere. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 06:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the reachmens uprising is confirmed by both the Bear of Markarth and Jarl Igmund states that the city was removed from imperial authority for two years before they reclaimed it, but this meaning of reclaim is most likely the demand for return from a position of authority, not the actual date in which they ended the uprising, which is noted by 3 sources as having happened 20 years ago (seeing as this can be seen at the start of game in 4e201, I did the simple math to reach 4e181). Nepos the Nose's dialogue, Thonar Silver-Blood's Journal, and a Loading Screen all confirm the native Uprising in Markarth was put down in 4e181, and the survivors fled and became the Forsworn.

.... and there is no source of the date for the Markarth Incident in the Bear of Markarth Book, it barely even touches on the subject, the closest we have is dialogue from Cedran stating that after Ulfric and his men put down the uprising a whole group of Thalmor came to Markarth and demanded his arrest, but again, it doesn't specify how long afterThorus (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This book is about the Markarth Incident, that is, Ulfric's intervention in the Reach. In any case, a written, specific date for the end of the Reachmen rule - that is, 4E 176, as stated in the book explicitly - is more credible than accounts like "20 years ago", which might be just an approximation. There's also nothing implying that restoring order took years; on the contrary, the book suggests that Ulfric gained control after capturing the city, which was immediately followed by persecutions of the Reachmen in the aftermath. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 17:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, "no source of the date for the Markarth Incident in the Bear of Markarth Book". The book is the source, a source doesn't need a source to be a source. We could just as well ask where the source for the loading screen and dialogue is. There are a number of time periods and only one date given for the uprising. The only actual date for the uprising is 174-176, everything else is vague or a length of time in the past. The loading screen and journal say 20 years in the past, but we don't know when the journal entry was written, we are only assuming that it was written in 201. Braig's dialogue complicates matters by saying his daughter volunteered for prison but was executed, and that she would have been 23 in 201, making her date of birth 178. His dialogue can only be wrong, because she didn't do that at -2 or 3yo. A source giving an actual date (eg 176) will always be considered more accurate than a rough period in the past (20 years ago) that relies totally on knowing when the source was written. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, seriously! you should reread it, it never mentions the Thalmor at all, only that granting Ulfric and his men their worship was in full violation or the White-Gold Concordat... it set the stage for the Markarth incident, but stops before it happens... or is there another version i'm unaware of that details the Thalmors arrival in markarth? In any case, teh years 174-176 are only the years where the Reachmen were left to rule as an independent kingdom before the deposed rulers made their reclamation known. in Cidhna mine Madanach says Braig has been there the Longest except for himself, so there is a notable amount of time where events have occurred that are unknown. you know that specific months and days aren't known either, making this also a rough period in the past, and don't forget that one of these "rough period" dates from a loading screen is also one stating The Fourth Era began 200 years ago when Martin Septim sacrificed himself to save the world from the Oblivion Crisis... surely you wouldn't consider this to be inaccurate, right? — Unsigned comment by ‎ Thorus (talk • contribs) at 04:47 on 31 July 2018

(←) Quick question, as it's been a while since I last played Skyrim, but isn't the Markarth Incident the time Ulfric used the thu'um to shout the Forsworn off the walls, etc? I didnt think the Thalmor were relevant to that event at all. Echo (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

They were in the aftermath. After Ulfric retook the city, the Empire allowed the Nords to worship Talos in Markarth, and when the Thalmor found out, they came and demanded Ulfric's arrest, so the Empire had to ban it again. But the consensus has always been that the name Incident refers to the whole thing which started with Ulfric's intervention. Cedran's dialogue describes it like that, too. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 07:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always seen the reference to the Great War and the Reachmens uprising and defeat prior to the Thalmors arrival and the Imperials betrayal of Ulfric and his Militia as back story for the Markarth Incident, as i've always seen these events separated by years as individual incidents Thorus (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, ok. It seems that a lot of people, myself included, have, at least a little bit, confused the close relation between the Forsworn Uprising and the Markarth Incident as synonymous things. The Forsworn Uprising is what we all know, and possibly all agree, when the Forsworn controlled Markarth between 174 and 176. The "Markarth Incident" is specifically the betrayal by the Empire over the promise to allow free worship in return for retaking the city/region. The Incident is not the end of the Uprising; the Uprising is the Forsworn, the Incident solely concerns Nords and their freedom of religion.

With that we can ask when that happened. There are 7 specific mentions of "Markarth Incident" in the game (that I can see) and none of them help with dating the incident. Madanach and Braig are not helpful in dating it, as they were both captured in 176 and Briag's dates don't add up with anyone else whatever year you place the Incident in. Some people in the game say Ulfric was imprisoned after the Incident, making the Incident the u-turn by the Empire. The loading screen doesn't help at all, it says "A native uprising in Markarth was put down 20 years ago. The survivors are known as the Forsworn." which is the Forsworn Uprising. Thonar's journal is the length of time Madanach has been jailed, and he was arrested in 176. Nepos talks about how long he has "played the game", and he was arrested in 176 along with Madanach, but obviously released at some unknown point later, and then he might not have been working for Madanach from the point of release. There is no question about the meaning of "reclaim", the Forsworn were only in power for 2 years, there was no period of being in power with the Empire demanding its return, it isn't even a relevant point when dating the Incident. Ulfric was not arrested the moment they took the city, but he was arrested relatively soon afterwards, as he was still in the city or nearby and was unable to call on his army to stop his arrest. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

is it bad that I use all the lore to make a cohesive picture of the events?

• The Reachmen ruled the Reach between 4e174-176, but Jarl Igmund says after that they reclaimed it, thus, in their mind, they saw themselves as the authoritative power in the hold, and the Reachmen as nothing more than an occupying and illegitimate force; a chaotic uprising
• The only records of Madanachs imprisonment is from Thonars journal and Nepos, and they do not list a Date, only that it was after the uprising fell, and that he has been in prison for about 20 years, which is the same time span given in the loading screen stating when the uprising was put down (what ever reason you can think of for the two NPCs not having the right date, can you give one for why the Loading screen confirms it, or why they remember it being the same amount of time?)
• You sure Nepos was ever arrested? he only says Madanach was thrown in the mines

I find this topic quite interesting in the way it connects to other parts of the Lore, if the games listings indicating the Uprising fell in 181, meaning the Markarth Incident occurred at some time past this event, it would mean that almost right after the Thalmor lost the Second war in Hammerfell, they came to Skyrim... but that's a bit of a rabbit trail -'J Thorus (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which piece of Igmund's dialogue you are referring to. The only one that seems close is "the Reach was removed from Imperial authority for two years before we reclaimed it. But the leaders of the uprising refused our offers of peace. They fled into the hills and became the Forsworn." That means they when they reclaimed it the Forsworn fled, which can only mean that the city was retaken by Ulfric at that time (either by force or because the Forsworn had left). Nepos says "Those of us who didn't run were executed, except for myself, my king," referring to himself and Madanach. Notice I said arrested, there is nothing to say Nepos was jailed, but he was arrested along with Madanach in 176 at the end of the Uprising. The loading screen is just wrong, the uprising was put down in 176. You don't loose power of a city but still occupy it in force for another 5 years, they would be in control and in power for that period. You don't loose power of or in a city just because someone else declares it theirs and does nothing to back that up for 5 years, you strengthen your grip. The quickness of Ulfric's victory, and the rumored brutality in victory doesn't fit with them being there a significant amount of time either, it would have been a much tougher fight had the Forsworn been there long enough to learn the cities defenses, and the brutality comes from avenging recent grievances (it could also come from victory after a prolonged fight, but a long period of "quite peaceful" rule would dull the "avenging" Nord's anger). Braig suggests he was arrested for simply speaking to Madanach (though he reveals later that he did kill people), and "every official who worked for the Forsworn" was killed, either of which would have resulted in the entire city being arrested and/or killed after 7 years or more of rule.

I am happy to concede that there isn't actually a date given for the Markarth Incident, but the two main bits of evidence you are using for placing it in 181 are irrelevant to the situation. The Uprising was put down in 176, at which time Madanach was arrested. Sometime after this the Empire reneged on its promise to Ulfric about allowing Nords freedom of religion. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe your confusion is mainly due to your narrow and limiting interpretation of the word "reclaim", for it is not limited to simply having gotten something back, but also the demand from authority, the return, or the action of taking back, and in my opinion, considering one of these definitions is a better course than autocratically ruling that the majority of the written lore is wrong -'JThorus (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(←) ...also a point to consider, the Reach is not the city of Markarth, would it not make sense for invaders to take control of the surrounding area before besieging the city at its heart? -'J Thorus (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is straying into the realm of speculation, which is better suited for the forums. --Xyzzy ^Talk 00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is In Game Lore... it was speculation that led to the error set as actual Lore Thorus (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the evolution of this topic has come despite your input, rather than because of it. Many of us were conflating the two events as one, but your posts caused us to reevaluate and see that they were indeed two. Your continued pushing of the same sources for your argument shows that you have not yet realized that your sources do not support your arguments. The loading screen clearly states "native uprising", not incident. The Incident is a separate event that happened after the Uprising was quelled. The quelling of the Uprising was 100% in 176. The only source for a different date is the loading screen, and it is unequivocally wrong. I have given multiple reasons, both logic and common-sense based that, as well as ingame, that show that the alternate meaning of "reclaim" is a complete non-starter as an argument, so you can drop it or be ignored. I think everyone (except you) now accepts that we don't have an explicit exact date for the Markarth Incident, so you can stop pretending we haven't accepted this, but we do have an explicit, exact, and source-based date for the end of the Uprising, and this is simply the end of the matter unless new evidence comes to light. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would you conclude that 3 separate sources in the Lore are unequivocally wrong? We know the Uprising in Markarth was put down 20 years prior to the start of the game (4e181), and that the Markarth incident happened after this point... wouldn't you say a thrice confirmed date for an event we know happened before the Markarth Incident is at very least a reasonable stepping off point?... or are you still positive that The Reach is just another name for Markarth itself? Thorus (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Era CC lore

I will keep deleting it, given that it not only break the lore(in multiple ways, logic cessation being one), but also that it is no way certified nor confirmed to be canon. It is in the same cattegory, if not worse, of Space Core or Zelda content, that is in no way canon. I give a fair warning.

Bethesda's inability to provide a definitive answer on the subject is perhaps best exemplified by its senior vice president of global marketing and communications Pete Hines, who - when asked on Twitter in December 2020 whether or not Skyrim Creation Club content was canon - replied, "Sorry, I don't know."

A neutral stance would be not to document CC content outside CC pages or else UESP risks being partial.

62.122.118.177 18:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You can bring this up on the Community Portal if you'd like to change current consensus on documenting CC on lore articles. Any removals made on the basis of the above reasoning will simply be reverted as vandalism. —⁠Legoless (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Would using ^CC to tag entries appropriately be a good solution? That would allow readers to easily determine what's what and make their own decisions on canonicity. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 19:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pete Hines has stated time and time again he is not involved with the lore, and has repeatedly requested people stop asking him questions about it as he can't and won't answer. His general stance that he is uninvolved with the lore created by Bethesda cannot be used as evidence that something is canon or not. To respond to RobinHood, we don't use any similar indicators in lore. I also don't think that's a good road to start going down, as there are also a considerable number of people who don't want to see any ESO lore (it would only be fair to similarly accommodate them if we started to do this), and a considerable number of people who don't want to see any lore that didn't solely come from Redguard and Morrowind. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. I can see how it would lead to a slippery slope and lead us to an overabundance of tags that wouldn't serve anyone. I wasn't aware that canonicity was questioned for anything other than CC. Thanks! – Robin Hood ^(talk) 19:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)