Lore talk:Second Era

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Cyrodiilic Empire and Tamriel[edit]

Doesn't Oblivion say that Tiber Septim proclaimed himself emperor in 2E 846, probably as emperor of Cyrodiil and not the entire Tamriel. - October 30, 2007 — Unsigned comment by (talk)

The line from Oblivion is:
Uriel Septim is a direct descendent of Tiber Septim, who conquered all of Cyrodiil and proclaimed himself Emperor in 2E846.
That is the only line in Oblivion making reference to 2E846. My guess is that it's a typo and is supposed to read 2E896, which based on Brief History of the Empire is when Tiber/Talos became emperor. There are multiple other sources which state that even after 2E846, Talos was still just a general under Emperor Cuhlecain (for example, The Legendary Sancre Tor, Battle of Sancre Tor). --NepheleTalk 14:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

New Date[edit]

Apophis2412, changes to the wiki do not require approval from admins. You've provided an accurate source for the information, meaning it was easy to find and verify, and so there's absolutely no problem with it going on the article. This is a good example of how easy this can be so thank you. –RpehTCE 13:34, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I know that I do not need administrator approval to change wiki's. I only waited with editing the other pages that mention the wrong date, because I wanted to know if there were any objections to me changing the date~from other members. Apophis2412 13:50, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry.... I just saw the "I will update the rest of the appropiate pages when the administrators agree with this change" part of your edit summary and posted a clarification. Please, go ahead and change anything else you find with the old date because - as you have demonstrated - it's clearly wrong. –RpehTCE 16:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Morrowind an island?[edit]

"2E 572 — The Akaviri invaders of Morrowind were defeated. The Akaviri invaders were killed when the island mysteriously became flooded. Despite the extensive flooding, almost no Dunmer people were injured or killed. Rumor has it that the god Vivec taught the Dunmeri to breathe water and flooded the island."

If the invading forces landed at and were also defeated on the island of Vvardenfell, it is certainly unclear. At the minute, it appears to be implying that the whole province is detached from mainland Tamriel. I won't make the edit, as I am unsure of the details regarding the invasion, and would hate to get it wrong.— Unsigned comment by (talk) at 00:48 on 6 October 2009

You're correct. Other sources imply that entire Morrowind was flooded, so I changed the world "island" to "land". Thanks for pointing this out! --Timenn-<talk> 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

King Edward, Moraelyn and the hiding of the Staff of Chaos[edit]

Do we even know what Era the events of the book King Edward take place in? While one of the longest in-universe books, it is largely detached from the historical continuity, except at a select few points: Moraelyn is probably the earliest known possessor of the Ebony Blade, and, per the Real Barenziah, the one who originally hid the Staff of Chaos beneath Mournhold. 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've honestly never read KE fully, which is shameful but there are only so many hours in the day. Whenever I've been searching for references, it has never been a book that comes up in my searches, which makes me wonder why you're mentioning it here. Is there an entry that depends on KE? I honestly don't know at the moment. I'm trying to get proper sources for all the dates here but keep getting distracted by other matters. rpeh •TCE 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


According to The Predecessors written by Yngvar Doom-Sayer or Yngvar the Wanderer and sheogorath the last 4 graymarch should be happened in 2e330,1e2250,1e1250 and 1e250 should we mention that(Vvardfell 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

So you've been reading my Lore notes. No. Because at the moment it's guesswork. rpeh •TCE 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Death of Savirien-Chorak[edit]

After a recent edit, I looked up the reference that states that Savirien-Chorak died in 2E 431, and what do you know, it's the *drumroll* 1st edition pocket guide! Contradicting several other accounts, as usual. So can we take for granted that 431 is wrong and that 430 is correct? -- kertaw48 09:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2E 430 reference seems more correct than the 431 one. The Brothers of Darkness goes as far as to state even the month of the assessination. Araglad 09:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit dumb. I searched for an hour trying to find the bad source that i end linking the wrong book... (facepalm) Araglad 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Aldmeri Dominion[edit]

Well, according to Pocket Guide Dominion was founded in 2E830, but it's already exist in TES:Online... so maybe there were 3 Dominions? The first was existing during TES:Online story, the second was founded in 2E830 and the third in 4E Tashy (talk)

We'll have to wait until we know more about the game for the time being, but that's possible. My guess, though, is that Zenimax is pinching off a spotty, lore-raping P.O.S. money dumpster, and we're going to have to make quite a few excuses like this for it in the lorespace. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:28, 21 December 2012 (GMT)
I'm not sure where, but I think I saw a more recent piece of lore stating that the formation of the first Dominion happened sometime in the mid of the Second Era. And we all know how reliable the first edition of the Pocket guide is, being a pre-Morrowind propaganda pamphlet. Colovian propaganda at that. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2012 (GMT)

TESO Dates and Information[edit]

TESO is not lore-based in many respects and not a part of Bethesda's work. TESO is largely revising and rewriting TES history instead of building upon it for the purposes of fitting their mmo concept. I suggest any information from TESO should be in a separate timeline with its own sections not integrated and confused into the timelines and articles from the single RPG's produced by Bethesda. Integrating the TESO "re-boot" will only confuse the overall lore since they are different independent productions. 04:55, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

Simply put, no. Online will be added to existing lore, like it or not. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 04:59, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
This is not about if anyone likes new lore being written. Everyone wants complete lore for TES on this site. However, TESO is a "re-boot" and will have conflicting lore. This is in part because it is not produced by the same studio and is a different genre with different goals. It should be treated as a separate title and "re-boot" not another chapter in the continuity line of the single RPG titles. You are not trying to organize information. 05:06, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
As far as I know, TESO is canon. And this is a site about Elder Scrolls, not Bethesda. So far there have been no inconsistencies with canon lore (not counting the whole Cyrodiil-being-jungle business). When and if they arrive, we'll deal with them separately. Besides, it's not as if it would be the first time something was contradictory in the Elder Scrolls universe. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
I consider ESO more of a "fill-in" than a "re-boot". ZOS specifically chose the Second Era for their setting as it is an Era with very little existing lore, the late sixth/early seventh centuries particularly. The ZOS devs are also in close communication with BGS so that they don't create garish conflicts with the lore, so I think integrating it should be relatively straightforward. Besides, such integration is already a part of the background story of ESO. The Knahaten Flu and Akaviri invasion are important plot points in the setup of the Alliances. --Enodoc (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
Could it be possible, in way to please everybody, to add a "TESO" tag to TESO timeline information (quite like DG or DB tags refering to plugins) so users would be able to quickly sort the origin of the information?
I do understand that the UESP is informational but when Nords team up with Dunmer, Khajiit with Bosmer, Altmer queen of the superior mer breed goes traveling around Tamriel, Mannimarco turns down to being an agent of Molag Bal, etc, etc... I can't help but shiver and wonder why they didn't set TESO in a Dragonbreak. So a little TESO tag wouldn't hurt, right? The information would still be there, but could easily be spotted as TESO lore. -- nox.fox (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (GMT+1)

() No. TESO lore is ES lore. The mod tags in gamespace do not apply in lore (e.g. information on Hermaeus Mora is not tagged as Dragonborn info, only references the same as the base games. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:09, 1 September 2013 (GMT)

As Enodoc said, it's put in a time where there's little info. If there are a massive amount of conflicts, we could perhaps make a template, but I don't imagine that happening. If there are some conflicts, we can always add a little note about them.
For game-specific lore, if you want to see origins, check the games' pages. Vely►t►e 22:36, 1 September 2013 (GMT)

Jorunn crowned High King[edit]

I may be being pedantic here, but none of the sources I've read say that Jorunn was crowned High King of Skyrim in 572, as is stated in the timeline. High King, sure, but not Skyrim. Skyrim doesn't even seem to be unified at this time; it is heavily implied in the book that there are two separate kingdoms in Skyrim, and the fact that he had to wear a disguise to go to Solitude (capital of "Western Skyrim") suggests that they are on less than amicable terms. To me, it is more likely he was crowned High King of Eastern Skyrim, or perhaps this was when he was crowned High King of the Great Moot, since it was just following the defeat of the Akaviri. --Enodoc (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (GMT)

I look at it this way. Both eastern and western skyrim consider themselves the "true" skyrim. He was crowned high king of skyrim, but it really only matters to eastern skyrim, western skyrim could care less and has its own high king. He is, for sure, high king of skyrim (in his eyes at least). He is also leader of the ebonheart pact, but that is called high king (as far as I can tell) it is just a leadership position without a true name. That's how I would read it anyway. Jeancey (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, that makes sense I guess. ESO should give us the full answers at any rate. The title High King of the Great Moot is on the EP Alliance Page; Jorunn is "acting High King of the Great Moot, but he does not rule absolutely", so indeed may never have had a conferral of power for this position in such a major event as a coronation. --Enodoc (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (GMT)

Errors on "Only Major Events" page[edit]

  • 2E 2xx events are listed under second century.
  • Third century is missing.
  • Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "nb", but no corresponding <references group="nb"/> tag was found

No idea how to fix any of those. — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 21:53 on 10 January 2014

Thanks. Should be fixed now. --Alfwyn (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2014 (GMT)

Assassination of Savirien-Chorak[edit]

According to the book The Brother of Darkness, Savirien-Chorak was assassinated by the Dark Brotherhood and not the Morag Tong. To pull a quote directly from the book: "Not long after Alimahera's journal entry came perhaps the most famous series of executions in the history of the Dark Brotherhood. The Colovian Emperor-Potentate Savirien-Chorak and every one of his heirs were murdered on one bloody night in Sun's Dawn in 430." This clearly frames the Dark Brotherhood for the deed, so can we edit the page to show this? 00:17, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

Another source, Fire and Darkness, is in direct opposition to this claiming it was the Morag Tong. Leaving it off has no detrimental effect, and anyone interested can click his name to get a better summation of his death and the differing evidence as to who killed him. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:25, 10 February 2014 (GMT)
Fire and Darkness refers to the assassination of Versidue-Shaie, not Savirien-Chorak. About the only source that I can find that implies it was the Morag Tong is Sacred Witness. The Brothers of Darkness directly states it was the Brotherhood, while most other sources just say he was assassinated, but not by who. I'm fine with leaving it unspecified since there's no incontrovertible evidence either way. -- Hargrimm(T) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

Request - 2E 583[edit]

Shouldn't there be some sort of mention of the year 253 and how that's when Online starts (obviously in lore-friendly terms)? --Resonance Gamer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

What happens in 253? Online starts in 582. Jeancey (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2014 (GMT)
On Online's main page it states twice the game starts in 253. I may be incorrect, but I assumed the information on the page was correct. --Resonance Gamer (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (GMT)
Sorry, I have my facts wrong, was looking at the wrong thing. My apologies --Resonance Gamer (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

Okay, sorry, I'm not sure where I got that number from, but under this page it says Online is set in 582, but on Online:Online and Online:Main_Page it says Online is set in 583. --Resonance Gamer (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

The Alliance war (which is the lore defining event of ESO) starts in 582. The game is set starting in the next year, 583. Since this is lore, we use the lore event, thus 582. Make sense? Jeancey (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2014 (GMT)
Yes, I'm following now. Sorry for the confusion. --Resonance Gamer (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

Assassination of Potentate Versidue-Shaie[edit]

Here on the UESP we have it that he was murdered by the Morag Tong in 2E 324, and the Dark Brotherhood existed since at least 2E 358, yet according to the Daggerfall Chronicles, the Potentate was murdered by the Dark Brotherhood. Would it be safe to assume the Dark Brotherhood could have existed since at least around 2E 324 as per the notes on 2E 358? --Rezalon (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much all evidence points to the Morag Tong being the ones who assassinated Versidue-Shaie, it's even mentioned by Morag Tong members in ESO. The Daggerfall Cronicles, written long after the event, being mistaken about who killed the Potentate is not evidence enough to say the Brotherhood existed then. That's not to say the Brotherhood wasn't around then, but the Daggerfall Chronicles does by no means prove it. Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Its a case of the evidence being undermined by the conflicting reports. Because of the Morag Tong evidence the Brotherhood evidence is not definitive (i.e. if the Morag Tong did the deed, then there is no evidence that the Brotherhood existed at that time). What the Tong members say in ESO would be interesting; do they claim responsibility or just mention it and leave it still vague about who did it? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Naryu Virian in ESO: Morrowind talks about an event in the past where the Tong "overstepped its boundaries", which caused it to be persecuted and eliminated in most of Tamriel, and from which they only recently recovered from (and only in Morrowind). This lines up perfectly with how the Potentate's assassination is described in The Brothers of Darkness. It's not stated outright that it is the assassination of the Potentate she's talking about, but there is no other event we know of that it could be.Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Source on 2E 583[edit]

Is there any source or lore evidence given for why we use 2E 583 as the year for when post-base game content is set? Cheers. --Rezalon (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the book Lore:Birds of Wrothgar found in the Orsinium DLC takes place after the main quest, and it mentions 2E 583. --Jimeee (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It should also be noted that much of the post-Orsinium content likely takes place even further forward in time, maybe as far as 2E 586 (the writers have confirmed that the story does move forward in time); but as we don't have any specific sources for that all post-main game events are labelled "circa 2E 583". — Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

2E 582 Edit Format Dispute and suggestion[edit]

Recently, the timeline has been changed to a contradictory format based on a misinterpretation of Leamon Tuttle's stance on when the game takes place. As he says "So, time in-game is personal to you. Given that multiple players can play content in any order, we've resisted the push to advance to 2E 583. For that reason, we assume that all events of ESO take place in 2E 582." This sentence implies that for design purposes, the game is set to be playable in any order, so officially, the game will not be moved past 2E 582, so that the player would not be constrained by chronology. I suggest that dates are put at 2E 582 - ? because as Leamon Tuttle said, "time in-game is personal to you." Leaving it vague instead of squeezing it into a year would better and fit Leamon's statement better of leaving it up to the player to decide the dates, and ingame dialogue supports the passage of time from 582, but with a ?, we would not intrude on the passage of time, and logically, these events cannot happen all in one year as ingame dialogue implies.Zebendal (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I made that edit, and I agree with you. I think that the note I placed after the year—saying that the year is unknown—made it ambiguous enough, but I’m all for additional ambiguity. Looking at the different stories, it’s very clear that, say, Summerset has to take place several years after 2E 582, but as ZOS refuses to give us a consistent timeline, we’ll just have to write something like what you suggest, with a note clarifying that the exacty year is unknown. I think that Orsinium should be left at 2E 583, though, as we have a source for that. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the best way to handle Birds of Wrothgar 2E 583 ref (which we all agree now is "wrong") is to have an addition note at the end of the paragraph to the effect of "Some sources place this event in 2E 583." Also, I think the nb note can be clarified by actually mentioning the rationale for cramming everything into one year (the AMA comment), as it isn't readily apparent to readers unaware of the AMA. --Jimeee (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Unless someone has any objections, I'll go ahead and make these changes. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the most recent edit by aran is the best course of action and most correctly showcases leamons comment on player choice. That format showcases that it could be 582 or be some other year.
Looks good, but the "(?)" after the date probably isn't necessary now the note is expanded. I'll update it. --Jimeee (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

War of Rihad[edit]

The article puts the year of the War of Rihad at 2E 862. I found no mention of that year in the source that's referenced, but it does say " in the War of Rihad two years past". Now I presume that whoever added this entry made the calculation that if the Pocket Guide was published in the year 2E 864, and the war happened two years before that, that it's safe to gauge when it happened (although that should have then been put in Notes with an explanation, not References). However, in the Pocket Guide, the quote in question is taken from Eric of Guis when he was stationed in Falinesti some time after 1E 2820. Since it's never stated how long he was stationed in Alinor before being posted to Falinesti (it does state that the quote was made within a single summer migration of Falinesti) I'm not sure we can safely say what year the war took place. At best we could say it happened in the late 2810s. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline's start at 2E 1[edit]

I can't seem to find a reason for the starting values on the Era's. The Merethic era ends at ME 1, The First Era starts at 1E 0, the second Era at 2E 1, the third era at 3E 0, and fourth era at 4E 1. The canon date for the Second Era's. Is this purposefully just using the sources wording "we will enter year one of the Second Era" and there are similar instances of this that I'm missing per article, I'm just missing a blatant read that explains this, or it's a silly quirk that can be edited. — Unsigned comment by Oofanari (talkcontribs) at 03:13 on 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources for this oddity are given on each individual article. Some eras start with a year zero, some with a year one; it's inconsistent. —⁠Legoless (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)