Concerning Ulster
While I find interesting that the Nasuverse confirms it follows the traditional dating, I question if this needs to be on this timeline. The thing is, I feel that if we add the datation of Cu Chulain's life, this opens the door to add dating/historical events of *every* Heroic Spirit, and that would make the timeline grow to a monstrous size that I don't think is warranted. I think the timeline works best if what is listed is directly relevant to the Nasuverse as a whole. For example, Gilgamesh's datation, Solomon's datation, and the datation of Arthurian Britain don't bother me because because they are relevant to the in-universe world as a whole (the Ages) and the storylines, as are the Lostbelts' deviation dates. I know this feels arbitrary, but I just don't want the timeline to be ridiculously long and filled with random trivia like the lifespan of every historical character and the traditional period of every legends and mythologies, making it difficult for someone to try and find the date of actual stories. The Lord Reader (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I uderstand what you mean, but there are 2 problems. 1) I don't advocate for addidng every single date of birth/death. If anything, only those that have been OFFICIALLY confirmed in CANON. If there is no fate series saying character ??? was born/died in ???, knowing there's a real life date for their REAL LIFE COUNTERPART doesn't matter. Just go to wikipedia for that. 2) I wasn't adding Cu's life. Sure Cu's life on its own is not a relevant timeframe in the series such as Gilgamesh initiating the separation or 500AD where the British isles started loosing Mystery. But knowing that all major Ulster/Celtic heroes lived in a quantitative peridod of time? I think that's indeed relevant. A piece of info that would be lost otherwise. If anything, it solves problem number 1 of adding a date for every single hero.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's the thing, a lot of those dates are confirmed in canon. If you look at the FGO Material profiles of most historical Servants, those dates are there. Which is what felt like opening the door to others to me, when it could just be info left to their own pages, or, as I did, put on a specific page if it concerns a group, which in this case was the Knights of the Red Branch. Even doing it only to groups/period feel a bit much, because there's a lot. There's the Trojan War group, there's the Mahabharata group (which Holmes' Trial Quest gives a date for so I guess you will add this as well?), the Paladins, the Heian group, the Sengoku era group, the Golden Age of Piracy, etc. I dunno, really feels like an hassle we don't really need to do. I won't erase stuff again, that was rude, but I can't say I'm onboard with this. The Lord Reader (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I would add those dates as well. Events such as the Trojan War or Mahabharata are referenced multiple times in-universe. It'd be nice not have all those confirmed dates listed here. Don't worry about deleting the edit. I didn't take it personally. On a side note, in Holmes' side story it says Mahabharata takes place in 5000 BC and is later written down in 400 BC. How is Gilgamesh the "oldest hero" if he lived around 2600 BC? Am I having a mental breakdown or what?GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is space to add another information field for better sortablity. If more events are to be added, they could be sorted something like "world event", "personal event" (births, deaths, etc), etc. Another option would be separate tables, though having everything sortable on one table is a bit more useful. EGGS (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I would add those dates as well. Events such as the Trojan War or Mahabharata are referenced multiple times in-universe. It'd be nice not have all those confirmed dates listed here. Don't worry about deleting the edit. I didn't take it personally. On a side note, in Holmes' side story it says Mahabharata takes place in 5000 BC and is later written down in 400 BC. How is Gilgamesh the "oldest hero" if he lived around 2600 BC? Am I having a mental breakdown or what?GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's the thing, a lot of those dates are confirmed in canon. If you look at the FGO Material profiles of most historical Servants, those dates are there. Which is what felt like opening the door to others to me, when it could just be info left to their own pages, or, as I did, put on a specific page if it concerns a group, which in this case was the Knights of the Red Branch. Even doing it only to groups/period feel a bit much, because there's a lot. There's the Trojan War group, there's the Mahabharata group (which Holmes' Trial Quest gives a date for so I guess you will add this as well?), the Paladins, the Heian group, the Sengoku era group, the Golden Age of Piracy, etc. I dunno, really feels like an hassle we don't really need to do. I won't erase stuff again, that was rude, but I can't say I'm onboard with this. The Lord Reader (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Inconsistent Dates
In Holmes' side story it says Mahabharata takes place in 5000 BC and is later written down in 400 BC. How is Gilgamesh the "oldest/first hero" if he lived around 2600 BC? Any clues?GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Due to the Epic being the oldest known surviving written work about a hero's journey in real life, Gilgamesh is "first/oldest hero" in regards to the in-universe lore. Being chronologically older doesn't matter when it's more about the conception of what makes a hero, Gilgamesh being the first recognized by humanity due to that. It doesn't really make much sense from a meta-perspective any longer, which is why they skirt around it with such justifications. EGGS (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I always thought that the sole reason GoB contains every NP to have ever existed is that he lived before everyone else, and that thus he had the originals of every other NP. Those NPs were later scattered around the world so that people could use them later on. Doesn't a bunch of heroic spirits being older than him contradict that? The exact line is "Similarly, Karna and Arjuna are from legends of the 4th century BC that place their story as being in 5000 BC." Could it simply be that the legend is falsely claiming 5000 BC as its date?GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's also Gil's clairvoyance being able to look both into the past as well to the future, but that since there was nothing before his birth, he was only interested in the future.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- You need to remember that the Age of Gods is fairly nebulous from the get-go. There are several statements saying as much. There are conflicting events that may have happened. Events mentioned only in legend that became truth later on as far as the Throne is concerned. Then you also have the individual geographical textures on top of that. Fragments has a particularly apt statement:
- "If this exception were to appear on reality, at that time, we will run into a single theory. In other words, is mythology an imperfect record that exists for the sake of catching a glimpse of the Age of Gods, or, is it a conceived past that was shaped by going back in time from a certain point?"
- Gilgamesh possesses the sum of human history. Gilgamesh possesses the physical NPs of all heroes. Those are two different statements. There's really not much point in thinking hard about it. They even use the word "paradoxically" in regards to the Noble Phantasm statement. The ever true statement "don't think" really applies in spades in regards to trying to reason anything out. EGGS (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. I had heard from a guy who's friends with Fallacies that Textures do have their own time streams and so on, but I never thought it could be that relevant. So, going back to the issue. Should I add the 5000 BC date to the timeline or not? Since we don't know if it is actually true, whereas Gil having lived in 2655 BC is an actual fact.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's also Gil's clairvoyance being able to look both into the past as well to the future, but that since there was nothing before his birth, he was only interested in the future.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Timeline Divergence
I have a question: should there really be duplications of timeline divergence in the first column (the general column), when there are already divergences in the respective works (worlds) that happen?