Lore talk:Cyrodilic Emperors

Name of Page

I like the idea of this page, and I'm shocked that we didn't already have something like this. However, not crazy about the name. It does follow Wikipedia's style of naming for this sort of thing, where all pages containing lists must be prefixed with "List of", but that's not generally how we've done things here on UESP. Also, "leaders" sounds a little weak - I'd prefer "rulers", assuming that doesn't violate lore somehow. I'd recommend "Rulers of the Empire", or just "Rulers" if that's not too vague. (There are presumably other places that have had rulers - do we have the lineage of the Aldmeri Dominion? Also the lists of rulers of each of the smaller kingdoms might get their own pages at some point. Anyhow, just my 2 cents on the matter. TheRealLurlock (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

I would agree with "Rulers of the Empire", the current title is awkward and, as you said, not consistent with other articles on UESP. — ABCface^◥ 13:18, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

That would be a better title. Also I went through and made some additions and changes, but I think much more work needs to be done to bring this article up to standard (for one, the dates are formatted differently in some section, and then Cuhlecain didn't lead the First, Second, or Third Empires, but was instead only a significant regional leader until Tiber Septim founded the Third Empire).76.181.68.59 21:05, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Or how about "Tamrielic Emperors"? I feel the title should get across the idea that this is a list of all the rulers of each of the three Tamrielic Empires, not the rulers of any single Empire (which "Rulers of the Empire" and "List of leaders of the Empire" imply), or lesser rulers (lords of provinces, city-states, counties, holds, etc). Also, how do you propose a page move here? I can't find an info page that lists those kinds of maintenance procedures.76.181.68.59 13:28, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

That makes sense too, probably more so, for the reasons you gave. See the {{Rename}} template. — ABCface^◥ 18:58, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Thank you. I added the tag. 76.181.68.59 15:30, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

First Empire of the Nords?

Should the Nordic First Empire be incorporated into the list? It ruled most of northern Tamriel at one point, and contributed to the founding of the southern Alessian empire. —Legoless (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Well, the name of the "First Empire of the Nords" was more of a testament to its size than to it being an actual empire. The rulers where still called high kings and not emperors. Plus, the traditional Tamrielic concept of an Empire really has its roots in Cyrodiil. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

Juilek

Why is Juilek listed as an emperor? He was a prince before he was killed - Reman III was still emperor at his time of death according to the 2920 series.

--Jimeee (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2012 (GMT)

Removed. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 15:53, 8 November 2012 (GMT)

Third Empire

Shouldn't Tiber be put under Interregnum along with Cuhlecain, at least until the 2E 896? According to The Arcturian Heresy, he crowned himself "First Emperor of Tamriel" at the end of his campaigns. The same book says he was crowned as "Emperor of All Cyrodiil" after taking the Citadel, i.e. taking the Imperial City in 2E 854. The question is, should we differentiate the two offices? The only real downside to this would be expanding the already weirdly-looking "Died/Overthrown" column header to "Died/Overthrown/Office Abolished". -- Kertaw48 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

Sidri-Ashak

Potentate Sidri-Ashak needs to be on here somewhere. This is the only source. —Legoless (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

Shor-El

This guy gets mentioned exactly once in the lore released thus far - in "Where were You when the Dragon Broke?" He's mentioned in the same context as Hestra - as an Emperor within the Amulet of Kings' oversoul who witnesses the events of the Dragonbreak and perceives Cyrodiil as an egg during this time period. The lore page on Shor here at UESP seems to connect him with an avatar of that god, but considering the context of this book it seems to me as if he were a mortal Cyrodiilic emperor of the First Era. Does anyone agree? Pilaf The Defiler (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (GMT)

I agree, given the context. Aside from a similar name, he has no connection to Shor any more than he does to Auri-El. Seems like he was an Alessian emperor? —Legoless (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2014 (GMT)

I'm guessing an Alessian emperor, yes, considering the timeframe and context. He's mentioned right after Hestra, so perhaps he ruled after her death? Pilaf The Defiler (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2014 (GMT)

Ami-El

So what are we doing about this chap? Last time we talked it was discovered the only source was a user called Fiore1300 who supposedly received a paragraph from gstaff mentioning this character. Note that this info is second hand and not directly from gstaff (a reliable source).

The last discussion didn't really have a clear outcome and there was talk about assuming good faith and/or some added verification. So what road are we going down? As it stands, the only source for this character is a link to the TIL timeline, and that's not really acceptable.

Personally, I disagree with the inclusion of Ami-El entirely for the reason that the source is not strong enough. In a recent Loremaster's Archive, a user added some headcanon to Ami-El's background, and in true Zenimax fashion it was completely ignored in the answer section, which only strengthens my belief that the validity of this character is tenuous. --Jimeee (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Under our current policy of ignoring half the contents of the LA Q&As, he shouldn't be included here. Without being able to validate that gstaff comment we can't rightfully use it as an OOG source either. —Legoless (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Just want to note that I've re-added Ami-El, but with a different source: the original "1E 358" timeline entry from The Imperial Library. Assuming that source is an acceptable OOG source (as far as I can tell it is since it was allowed to stand on Lore:Direnni), then we at least know Ami-El existed and ruled in 1E 358. Croaker (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That timeline is not an acceptable source, and its use on the Direnni article is contested and should probably be removed as well. I've therefore undone your addition. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long the matter of Ami-El is conclusively settled one way or the other. I'm tired of the uncertainty. My rationale for supporting the TIL source rested solely on its inclusion in the Direnni article anyway. Croaker (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, just a shame no one could ever find a source for this guy. —Legoless (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(←) Having done some fruitless searches for an alternative source of any kind and waited a few weeks for someone else to succeed where I failed, I've gone ahead and removed the Ami-El statements from the Direnni and First Era articles. This means that as of this comment, Ami-El is officially removed from all mainspace articles at UESP. Maybe one day we'll hear of him again. Croaker (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

They did just the day before you posted this. In ESO-RP's second Loremaster Special they say Alessian Order records show that Ami-El was assassinated by his own daughter, and that he was Belharza's successor. What do you guys make of this? The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be an acceptable OOG source given that a prior interview with Schick is treated as such. I'll give it a listen. The timing of the interview, within the same time period that Ami-El's fate on UESP is decided, is interesting. Kismet, perhaps? Croaker (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: I got my hopes up. Unfortunately, the bit about Ami-El and his daughter (starts around 7:00 in the interview) comes from a fan question posed to Schick/Phrastus, not from Schick's actual answers. While there's plenty of other usable info in the interview, we've still got nothing to firmly anchor Ami-El in canon. Croaker (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe in order to determine the canonicity of what the interviewers say, we would have to know if Lawrence Shick approved the questions and thought of answers beforehand, or if he just made the answers on the spot. I believe it to be the first, considering the ESO-RP team knew he would be the interviewee a month before the interview. The question did not ask about Ami-El, it merely mentioned him as part of context. It was not essential, but I think Lawrence may have wanted to keep it in. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As Legoless says near the top of this discussion, current policy is to disregard interviewer questions entirely in Lore Master interviews. If Schick truly intended the Ami-El question to be canon, he should have said so, then we could use it. Croaker (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. In classic Zenimax fashion, Schick answers in an extremely vague manner and pretty much disregards the entire part about Ami-El. This makes it far too open ended to infer anything. If Schick said something... anything that specifically confirmed Ami-El's existence, I would change my stance. --Jimeee (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If I could add to this conversation, I was the one who originally contacted GStaff regarding Ami-El for my Skyrim Timeline project over at the old offcial forum. I originally took screenshots of the conversation to give to Lady Nerevar at TIL as proof. She never ended up posting them, so they've sat on my hard drive for a few years. Dug them back up when I came across this thread. I have uploaded them here https://ibb.co/jkADvQ and here https://ibb.co/cdTNpk This is as much proof as I can offer. Fiore1300 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that the screenshots I posted concerned the Aetherium Wars, not the topic at hand. I don't have screenshots of the original Ami-El statement, because that was not a private conversation between myself and GStaff. I believe it was a public comment by GStaff himself. I am currently scouring the old forum, but the place has become impossible to search in any sort of organized fashion. You can find the statement recorded on TIL here: https://www.imperial-library.info/content/forum-archives-matt-grandstaffs-posts and here is a thread where we talked about the revelation in parallel to the official forum thread: https://www.imperial-library.info/content/what-do-we-know-ami-el I will try to search the offical forums more thoroughly some other time. Fiore1300 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I decided to try and look and I have found the thread (started by yourself): http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1481552-ami-el-anyone-know-sauces-for-this-figure/

Gstaff's comment (as it appears on TIL) is still there, so I'm happy that the source is now actually verified. The only thing that bothers me is if Ami-El only exists in Bethesda's secret timeline... when and how the hell did his name get leaked to the public years ago? He is mentioned in no other official material. The only clue I have is LadyN's comment: "My guess would be that it came from the original pre-Morrowind timeline that was given to TIL way back when." It implies Bethesda gave TIL their timeline years ago and it was uploaded in its entirety (with Ami-El in there). --Jimeee (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would never have thought to check the Past Elder Scrolls Games forum. Nice work. Regarding the original timeline, it seems it was pre-TIL, when the website was still known as Xanathar's Library back in 2002. Official forum user Benefactor claims to have found the oldest reference to Ami-El dating from 2002 on Xan's Library using the Internet Wayback Machine. Benefactor also mentions that there was a timeline on the official site at around the same time (which wasn't saved by the Wayback Machine, unfortunately). It might be worth some investigation, but I doubt if it contains any hidden gems. Lady N herself has said that the Ami-El mention was the only thing completely removed from the TIL timeline due to lack of any reference. Fiore1300 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Moon-Emperor of Elsweyr

There's a couple mentions of a Moon-Emperor in Elsweyr's history. The first was in Kyne's Challenge, which says that they're some of Tamriel's oldest history as well as ruling the entire province. Another is in Anequina and Pellitine: An Introduction, which mentions one that came before Darloc Brae in 1E 461. Is it worth putting it here? --Vincentius1 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This page lists emperors of Cyrodiil and those who controlled the Imperial City and/or the Ruby throne. The Moon-Emperor only ruled Elsweyr, and Darloc Brae ruled Anequina. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

But the page is called Tamrielic Emperors and lists all known Emperors in Tamriel, as the first line implies. A Moon-Emperor is still an Emperor in Tamriel, just ruling on a small scale. Now the title of Emperor isn't exclusive to Cyrodiil or the Empires. If anything, a more accurate title for the page should be "Cyrodilic Emperors" because that's what it makes it out to be. Also, I didn't say that Darloc Brae was a Moon-Emperor. --Vincentius1 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The page says nothing of the sort. There isn't a single person here who didn't rule Cyrodiil or have control of the Ruby Throne. You have a point about the page title, but its content is clearly explained. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that the first sentence says, "The table below lists all known Tamrielic Emperors." The next one clarifies that it covers the Cyrodilic Emperors and not Tamrielic Emperors in general. But I think if it's called Tamrielic Emperors, why not include a bit about the Moon-Emperors, at least in a notes section. If the page is strictly-only meant to cover the Cyrodilic ones then that's fine, but it should be called Cyrodilic Emperors if that's the point. --Vincentius1 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that the title of the article is very redundant. Why specify it as "Tamrielic Emperors" and then only list Emperors who specifically ruled Cyrodiil? What about the Nordic Emperors for the First Empire of the Nords, another empire in Tamriel? I believe the article is only named this because of the Yokudan emperors like Emperor Hira or Akaviri rulers like Tosh Raka, and nobody really thought it through when naming it.

As for the Elsweyr Moon-Emperor(s), they could be listed or mentioned on the Elsweyr page in the same manor as Lore:Skyrim#Rulers (we could also do the same for the high kings of Hammerfell on Lore:Hammerfell. This discussion still brings up a good argument about how misleading the article's name is, and that we should probably change it. I think it should be renamed to "Lore:Emperors" and list Tamrielic Emperors under one section, and maybe put the Yokudan emperors under another section all on the same page. The Rim of the Sky (talk)

The name might seem off, but renaming it "Emperors" and throwing in all manner of rulers won't work or will seem incomplete. Nordic Emperors weren't really a thing - while it was its own empire, the rulers were High Kings. That will just confuse things. I believe the intent of this page was to record the rulers of the most important empire in history - which is the Lore:Empire, which almost always extended past the borders of Cyrodiil, hence Tamrielic. The best thing is to list the Moon Emperor on the Lore:Elsweyr#Rulers, and the same for other monarchs.--Jimeee (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

On Umaril

I would agree with removing Umaril from the list if not for two other inclusions, 'many would-be conquerors' and Thules the Gibbering. In both entries, the 'emperors' are no more than people who seized control of the Imperial City (to my best understanding). While an argument could be made for the would-be conquerors that they technically took over the Empire of Cyrodiil (Interregnum), the same can not be said for Thules. With this in mind, I do believe that Umaril qualifies for this list, as he was the sorcerer-king of the Temple of Ancestors (Imperial City) per The Prophet's dialogue in Knights of the Nine. Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that he isn't "the" sorceror-king, but rather one among many. He wasn't even the only king present at White-Gold Tower. As noted by Herminia Cinna: "My own research into the Late Ayleid Period suggests that there was not a single Ayleid ruler, but many. They were a bitterly divided people, with many warlords vying against each other for power. Their ultimate demise was wrought by their own civil strife at least as much as by the rebellion of their human slaves." Although Ayleid hegemony over Cyrodiil is referred to as the "Ayleid Empire", this is an in-universe misnomer and I can understand the reasons for its removal from this page. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Definite support for removing the Ayleids from this page. I am unaware of any source that reasonably supports the assertion of the previous edit of a single ruler of the Ayleids. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Following the last discussion on Appendices, the scope of this page will be made clearer that its only meant to list the human Empires that ruled the Ruby Throne post-Alessia. Specifically the First, Second and Third Empires (Plus Empire of Cyrodiil.) The other foreign empires should also have their own list page too though.--Jimeee (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, while the term 'Ayleid Empire' started out as a scarcely used term, it has been used in various sources now including by Ayleid scholars, see Meet the Character - King Narilmor by Tjurhane Fyrre — Biography of a zealous Meridia worshipper. As for any centralized leader or not, the basis for Umaril being this leader is found in a few sources: “We must forge a unified front against these upstart Men or we might share the same fate as our liege-lord. I trust I'll have your support.”—Umaril is undone book “Umaril the Unfeathered, the sorceror-king of the Ayleids who ruled over this land for long ages before the rise of Men. He was cast down by Pelinal Whitestrake. But Umaril's spirit survived, and now he has returned to seek vengeance upon the gods.”—Prophets dialogue in KotN. So we have a source of Ayleid Kings referring to Umaril as their "liege-lord", and a prophet of the Nine Divines stating Umaril was the Sorcerer King of the Ayleids who ruled the land. Also the upcoming Umaril crown crates have a lot of flavor text on Umaril leading campaigns into other provinces such as Black Marsh possibly trying to annex other provinces for the "empire". I’m fine with leaving it off of this page if this is strictly about the human kingdoms but that’s the basis for Umaril being the closest thing the Ayleid Empire had to an Emperor. Dcking20 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are great sources and go towards aiding our understanding of Umaril's role. They are directly contracted by the Song of Pelinal and Herminia Cinna, however, which I would consider more reliable sources on the topic. Everything the Prophet says is a simplification of the Song of Pelinal, a primary source. Herminia Cinna is our main academic source for understanding the Ayleid Empire and her views form the basis of later lore established by ESO (e.g. Ayleid Survivals in Valenwood). —⁠Legoless (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Rename

On the Appendices navbox, there's a section called Tamrielic Empires that links here. However, that list includes the Ayleid Empire and the First Empire of the Nords, the former being recently removed due to lack of a figurehead leader and the latter never controlling the Ruby Throne, which is what this page is about. Thus, the rename of Cyrodilic Emperors. This page omits several 'Tamrielic Emperors' such as Vrage the Gifted, Borgas, and Darloc Brae, furthering the benefit of the rename. If the argument is that Tamrielic Emperors does not mean Emperors on Tamriel, but rather Emperors of Tamriel, then surely the Alessians, Interregnum Empire, and Mede Dynasty shouldn't qualify as Tamriel-encompassing, considering each of them were accompanied by larger or comporable Empires on Tamriel during their existence. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Although I don't know if this is the right place to suggest this, the issue of the Appendices linking here could be solved by a separate article for all Empires? Just a thought. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Years for the section “Died, Deposed, Abdicated, or Office Abolished”

ErfXploded undid my revision of the year that Attrebus Died, was Deposed, Abdicated, or had his office abolished because I removed 2E 53 ? which to me seems like an incorrect way to write that because it makes it look like 2E 53 instead of 2E 530, and we don’t even know if he ruled during the 2E 530s because the best we can estimate based on the currect evidence is that Attrebus reigned at sometime during the period from 2E 430 to 2E 533. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We use stuff like 2E 5?? and 3E 42? all the time, as does TES Wiki. If we wanted to display what you're mistaking it for, we'd write it as 2E 53(?) instead. Erf is correct in that it was better before. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not how you type that, so if it is used here or on the TES wiki, that is incorrect. The correct way to write it would be c. 2E 530. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, c. 530 or 530s makes the most sense to me. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Imo it should just say ?. We know that the Akaviri had to flee Cyrodiil pretty soon after 431 thanks to ESO:Elsweyr, so Attrebus living around 430 and up to 530 is highly questionable. TheynT (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For dates in general, I think "53?", "c. 530", and "530s" can be used interchangeably, I have no preference which one as long as its one of those three.

As for Attrebus' date itself, I've never once thought that he reigned before the Longhouse emperors. The claim that he did is based off Rimmen's supposed founding, but ESO revealed that Rimmen was founded in the Merethic Era, making that irrelevant. I always assumed Attrebus reigned closer to the 700s, and him not getting a single mention in ESO makes that even more likely. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever said anywhere that the Akaviri refugees founded the city of Rimmen. The Pocket Guide to the Empire, 1st Edition/The Elsweyr Confederacy implies that Rimmen was their city, but the book never says that they founded the city of Rimmen. The reason that I think Attrebus reigned before the Longhouse emperors is because the Rim-men already existed during the time of ESO, and there is no evidence of the Akaviri still living in Cyrodiil during the time of ESO, so I don't see how Attrebus could have reigned after the Longhouse emperors. I agree that Attrebus was meant to reign in about the 700s when The Pocket Guide to the Empire was written for Redguard, but with what we know from ESO, that seems impossible to me. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"The claim that he did is based off Rimmen's supposed founding" - no, the main thing of Attrebus is that he was the one who drove the remaining Akaviri out of Cyrodiil. ESO Cyrodiil has naught Akaviri/Tsaesci around, and the descendants of a group that fled we know did so relatively shortly after 430. That's the main basis for placing Attrebus. (So what Savirien says) TheynT (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(←) TheynT is right. Attrebus drove the Akaviri refuges from Cyrodiil. While they did create a town, it was not Rimmen, but rather Hakoshae. The time range that he must have ruled between 430 and 533 is correct. On Lore:People A, this is represented as 'fl. 430'. Perhaps we leave the End date as ? and use the floruit as the beginning? Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that putting floruit or even circa before dates would be vastly superior to the current way that approximate dates are written around here. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Unknown Mede Emperors

The two entries for the unknown Mede Emperors are essentially speculation since neither emperor is ever directly or indirectly mentioned in any source as far as I'm aware, so I think that the two entries should be removed from the page. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would rather have an explanatory note for the gap than make it appear like Titus II inherited the throne directly from Attrebus. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Legoless. It’s more misleading to take these guys out and then not give any info on the gap. Also, is it not implied that there were Emperors in this gap? Titus and Vitoria Vici are cousins and therefore suggests the existence of Titus’ parents being the previous rulers. I’m sure there’s more on Titus II’s predecessors if we look a little more. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Legoless, I don't see any reason to provide an explanation for the gap because the page doesn't provide explanations for the huge gaps between the Alessian Emperors, the gaps between the Interregnum Emperors, or the gap between Ocato and Thules the Gibbering. It wouldn't appear that Titus II inherited the throne directly from Attrebus Mede, because Attrebus would be 142 years old in 4E 168. The Style Guide even says that gaps in the article should not be filled in with approximations or best guesses. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Rim of the Sky, I'm not saying there weren't emperors during the gap, but the only thing that implies that there were emperors during the gap is that Titus II is a member of the Mede Dynasty. I don't see how Titus Mede II and Vittoria Vici being first cousins suggests that Titus II's parents were the previous rulers. Also, we don't even know if Vittoria Vici is the paternal or maternal cousin of Titus II. Do you think I didn't search for references to Titus II's predecessors before making this discussion? I searched, and I could not find much of anything, with the closest thing being a sentence from The Great War book, which mentions that Titus Mede II inherited a weakened empire, which still isn't much evidence. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I support Chorak. There's no filler entry between Gorieus and Hestra despite their massive time jump. I further move that we should remove Attrebus Mede, since it is entirely speculation that he inherited the throne. Mindtrait0r (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removing Attrebus Mede from the article. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What I will say is that there isn't a need for two "unknown" entries, as thats based off math and could be condensed into one, like we did with the Kamal usurper entry. The line in The Great War of "Titus Mede II he inherited a weakened empire" is confirmation enough that there was an emperor before him. We can just note this info and simplify the entry to that. As for Attrebus Mede, he's not some random family member, he's the Crown Prince and its not unreasonable to say he was Titus' successor as the books foreshadow. Any sense of doubt is noted in the note linked right next to his name, so we can just keep it the same. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The Kamal usurper entry is one entry because the Pocket Guide to the Empire, 1st Edition/The Elsweyr Confederacy is simply too vague to determine if there were just one or multiple Kamal usurpers. As I already said, I don't doubt that there were emperors during the gap, but this page should not have entries that are based on what is essentially conjecture. The line from The Great War may not even be specifically talking about Titus Mede II inheriting the throne from his immediate predecessor, since the book right after that sentence talks about things that would have happened long before the reign of Titus II's immediate predecessor. The inclusion of Attrebus Mede in this article is another instance of conjecture, as there is no proof that he ascended to the throne, and just because he held the title of crown prince doesn't necessarily imply that he did. Here are some examples of crown princes who never became emperors: Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria; Wilhelm, German Crown Prince; Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsesarevich of Russia; Li Jiancheng, Crown Prince of the Tang Dynasty; Xiao Tong, Crown Prince of the Liang Dynasty; Zhao Hong, Crown Prince of the Southern Song Dynasty; and Zhu Biao, Crown Prince of the Ming Dynasty. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Its far more conjectural to say these people were not emperors than to note that they most likely were. You're jumping through hoops and making mental gymnastics solely to justify this. The notes attached to the emperors is valid enough. Attrebus had no siblings and the Mede line continued so its more likely than not that he became emperor. That part of the page does not need to change as, again, the note explains this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(←) This discussion has gone from bad to worse. What do you mean you support removing Attrebus Mede from the article? Crown Prince Attrebus must remain on the page with an explanatory note, as was clearly the intention of the romantic ending in Lord of Souls. Playing Devil's advocate and trying to delete useful information from the page is a degradation of the article, and if we go down that path this page would end up being pared of much more than just the Mede line. This is an appendix article, the primary purpose of which is to explain away the inconsistencies and lack of information around Imperial succession. It has served its purpose well for over a decade, and none of the arguments presented here do anything to improve the explanatory notes that were added at the time. The standard of proof you are requiring does not exist in the media we've been provided, and it serves the reader much better to explain all this rather than remove the information outright. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Titus II's 'inherited' note is sufficient for one preceding unknown ruler slot. I still don't agree that Attrebus should be here, and I think it's pretty clear what I mean by that. I want to note my distaste for calling this discussion "bad to worse". How was it bad before? Just because you disagreed?

Attrebus could've died for all we know. Titus could've had more children later, or maybe Attrebus' child took the throne. More likely than not is not the burden of reasonability for making assumptions on the wiki. Any and all assumptions, which all probably fall under the wide umbrella of original research, should be patently obvious. In this case, right now, it is a 50/50 split of whether people say Attrebus definitely became Emperor vs. Attrebus might not have. With how much less assertive one of these statements is, I hope you can see why I think the way I do. I'm not opposed to a note about Attrebus but with how bloated the notes section is it may not be the best choice. Mindtrait0r (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 28 notes on this page. The page is not "bloated"; the decision to add so many notes is an editorial choice to provide out-of-universe information explaining how we have chosen to assemble the line of Cyrodilic succession. For the Mede dynasty, we end with a crown prince finding love and returning to the capital in 4E 48, and we pick back up with Titus II in 4E 168. The continuance of the Mede line is enough to infer Attrebus' accession. Pretending it could have happened any other way—without any source to back that up—is speculation, and does not improve the accuracy of the page. There is no world in which Attrebus' removal is preferable to an explanatory note calling out the fact that we have no direct evidence of accession. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not conjectural to say that Attrebus Mede didn't become emperor since no current source available to us says that he did. It really doesn’t matter to me if Attrebus Mede stays on the page because I care much more about the unknown Mede emperors. I’m not jumping through mental gymnastics because there are no direct or indirect mentions of Titus Mede II's immediate predecessor or any source that says that Attrebus Mede became emperor. Titus Mede I had brothers, so the idea that everyone with the surname Mede is a direct descendant of Attrebus is something that can’t even be proven. The Style Guide says, "However, gaps in the article should not be filled in with approximations or best guesses." Savirien-Chorak (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Would something along the lines of "Unknown (many)" work, similar to what is currently done for the Alliance War player emperors? I think typical human lifespans in TES give weight to the assumption that there were two between Attrebus and Titus II, but I accept your point that we shouldn't assume. —⁠Legoless (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think simply putting "unknown" would work. We could say something along the lines of "It isn't known how many emperors reigned from 4E 48 to the accession of Titus Mede II in 4E 168, but as Titus II is described as inheriting the Empire in the Great War and he was a member of the Mede Dynasty, it can be inferred that there were emperors during this time period." Or we could just mention the emperor that Titus II inherited the throne from. Savirien-Chorak (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(←) Based on the discussion we've had, I've updated the table and condensed it down into one entry. I hope that this will serve as a solution for the topic. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The current version looks good to me! —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Empress Herda position in the list

Since Herda is barely mentioned in lore and there might be conflicting information about her position in the list, I'm going to repost here the discussion about her from the Alessian Empire discussion page (I hope the other guy doesn't mind me reposting this) so you can all see the arguments used to place her right after Gorieus:

Herda and the Alessian Reform

I noticed a timeline discrepancy regarding the dissolution of the Alessian Reform, particularly regarding one Empress Herda. My full analysis of the situation can be read here, but the jist is that I think Herda should be placed between Shor-El and the unnamed Thrassian Plague. Her only mention comes from PGE3 Valenwood, which says

"Even with the eventual dissolution of the Alessian Reform of Marukh, battles continued to be waged along the Cyrodiil and Valenwood border lands. When the Empress Herda improved relations with the Colovian West, the attacks only intensified, though it was not until 1E 2714 – after unrelenting warfare and a devastating plague from the island of Thras – that Valenwood fell to the Cyrodilic Empire."

I believe this confirms two things. One, that Herda should be placed before the Thrassian Plague emperor since her actions are chronologically placed before the plague. And two, that the Alessian Reform is not the same thing as the Alessian Order. The quote places the "eventual dissolution" of the reform before Herda's reign and the subsequent plague. Neither of these points are contradicted by other sources, either. As stated before, Herda is only mentioned here, and the other sources which mention the "Alessian Reform(s)" all fall within the same timeline in the early First Era, not the mid-late period which the Alessian Order took hold in. The Final Lesson and A History of Daggerfall both place the Reform in the 1E 300s to 1E 400s, and Rislav The Righteous shares this time period while stating that Rislav's victory was the beginning of the end for the Reform, with High Rock and Skyrim both resisting it. Halcyon Lake's loading screen places it during the time of the Late Ayleid Period, and Once corroborates Rislav. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your statement is reasonable and I'm inclined to agree with most of it, though I have some comments to add:

1. Indeed, since the lore book mentions her reign as before the Thrassian Plague, then yes she needs to be put before the unknown Emperor that funded the All Flags Navy.

2. I looked around in the sources that you mentioned. At least to my interpretation, the Alessian Reform sounds just like another term for the Alessian Order, meaning they are the same thing.

3. By reading the Alessian Order wiki page, the only times it mentions the words "Reform" is when it talks about the "Alessian Reformation of Marukh, which led to the proliferation of the modern Tamrielic pantheon of the Eight Divines.". If we are going to be literal and consider this as the Reform, then by the dates everytime the reform is mentioned, Herda should be placed right after Gorieus and before Hestra. Everytime the Reform is mentioned, it's always in the fifth or sixth century of the First Era, shortly after Gorieus defeat at the hands of Rislav and the opposition of the Colovian West. Count Reman IV (talk) 19 May 2024