+- Silgrad Tower from the Ashes (https://www.silgradmodding.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Modding for Silgrad Tower TES IV (on hold) (https://www.silgradmodding.net/forum/Forum-Modding-for-Silgrad-Tower-TES-IV-on-hold)
+--- Forum: All Categories of Development (https://www.silgradmodding.net/forum/Forum-All-Categories-of-Development)
+---- Forum: Visual Development (https://www.silgradmodding.net/forum/Forum-Visual-Development--72)
+---- Thread: Oblivion's starting year [3E 433] (/Thread-Oblivion-s-starting-year-3E-433)
Oblivion's starting year is 3E 453 - Razorwing - 05-23-2005
At least I think it is. Much further into the "future" than I would have imagined.
From the official video we learn that the Emperor has ruled for 65 years.
From the Imperial Library:
Quote:"3E388: Pelagius IV dies, his son Uriel Septim VII takes the throne."
So, 388+65=453.
What do you guys think?
- noremorse - 05-23-2005
Sounds about right.
Xanathar's quote - Razorwing - 05-25-2005
Here's a quote from Xanathar in the thread on ESF.
Quote:Originally posted by Xanathar
Guys, there is a mistake in the Timeline, I'm doing an update now, will be up in TIL about one hour. I took the year from Brief History of The Empire, which in turn has a mistake. Here is a quote from Ted Peterson (the man behind Stronach k'Thojj III):
Quote:Originally posted by Ted Peterson
Good catch everyone.
Scribe's error. Pelagius IV reigned for 29 years, not 49. Stronach noticed this some time ago to his embarrassment, and the newest edition of A Brief History will correct this.
Thus:
Pelagius IV's reign - 339 to 368
Uriel VII's reign - 368 to today
Jagar Tharn took over for ten years 21 years into Uriel VII's reign, as stated.
The Imperial Library made a mistake when they set the starting year of Uriel Septim VII's reign to 388, when it should be 368. Thus, Oblivion's starting year would be 3E 433, six years after Morrowind started (in 3E 427). Sounds much more logical to me.
- Ben Vagara - 06-13-2005
Nice find Razorwing.... always helps to have the chronology work out.
So our "old books" section might not be quite that old, eh?
Ben
- Razorwing - 06-13-2005
Quote:Originally posted by Ben Vagara
Nice find Razorwing.... always helps to have the chronology work out.
So our "old books" section might not be quite that old, eh?
Ben
Yes, "Books of Old" isn't a very good title, especially not as it also can encompasses newly written works of fiction, like your excellent novel for example. Could you suggest a new title?