From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

just a bit of math[edit]

The year in the Dynastic Reconing calonder isn't 'unknown' for when the Giganticus Lupicus were last spotted if there is a set year in the Mauvelian calender. Just takes a bit of math. :P Silavor UserSilavorSigIcon.png 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

forgot the Great Dwarf and Great Destroyer.--User Fire Tock sig.jpgFireTock 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Add it? — Eloc 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Beacon's Perch info.[edit]

In the description it says that it was named after the Dwarf who single-handedly fought back the Hill Giant invasion. So..Wouldn't it be Beacon, rather than Lornar? Gmr Leon 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Named for the legendary Dwarven warrior who single-handedly help off the great Hill Giant invasion of 534 A.E. I guess it should be changed, besides didnt Droknar live before that Hill Giant invasion? User C4K3 Signature.jpgC4K3 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


AE = ? After... Something?-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

After Exodus. After the Gods left the world.--Pyron Sy 01:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 02:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Movement of the World approximation dates[edit]

I took the liberty of adding dates that have a very close estimate from the Movement of the World. Judgment of said dates, and the not-so-clear dates can be found here. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


I added 250 years onto 1078 AE,1588 CC and 1278 DR so my answer would have to be when Guild Wars 2 is and so should we change it to 1328 AE, 1838 CC and 1528 DR in stead of 1325 AE, 1835 AE and 1525 DR or are we going by roughly 250 Years - Giant Nuker 15:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We were told "roughly 250 years" or something like that, meaning it could technically range from 1320 AE to 1330 AE, or maybe even a bigger difference, to be honest. We can't set a real year for GW2 just year, all dates after "Present day in Eye of the North." is approximations except for Ventari's death and Usoku coming into power. Hence all the "Best guess of" and (approx.) at the end of most things. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 22:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok I was just wondering about that - Giant Nuker 01:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Travel[edit]

Based on this time line, when a Nightfall characters travels from Kamadan to Lions Arch they've traveled backwards in time 3 years. That doesn't make sense.

That bothers me as well.-- Shew 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Linsey has explained this before: The areas are "stuck in time" so to speak. This is because the areas are based on the campaign, not your own progress, and you can't have LA change from White Mantle controlled to lacking the White Mantle control because of new players. More or less explained in full here. -- Konig/talk 01:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish I could "suspend my disbelief." It's a linear storyline, and I understand that the quests are there for gameplay purposes, but being meticulous about my character's lore, it doesn't fit, which means I won't create a Nightfall character and go to Cantha or Tyria, even though I want to. >_<-- Shew 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

King Doric's Crowning..[edit]

Where is the date included in the timeline derived from? I don't recall ever seeing any source that specifies when precisely King Doric was crowned as king at the moment. Gmr Leon 13:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical Monument of King's Watch "Founded: Season of the Phoenix, 1 A.E --- On this site, more than one hundred years prior, the first king of the new Republic of Ascalon was crowned. It was dedicated, on this, the ninety-fifth day of the year, in the Season of the Phoenix, in honor of the passing of the greatest of all kings. This stone stands in memory to the first of all sons of Ascalon, King Doric. For it is through his sacrifice that we now live on. May his blood have been spilled for the good of all." Not exact, but best date. -- 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Prophecies and Factions[edit]

How can they be the same year ? I mean, I know Mhenlo is awesome and everything, but he can't be saving Tyria and Cantha at the same time, can he ? ôO May I ask where the dates come from ? I couldn't find anything in my game manuals^^ 21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates come from official timelines from the manual (look harder - try the NF one). As for how they can be during the same year - it seems that Factions occurs right after Prophecies - with the events of Shing Jea occurring during the events of the Southern Shiverpeaks/Ring of Fire Islands. Also note that the end of Prophecies is "late into the season of the scion" - i.e., Autumn. So the events of Factions would, at least start, in Fall and end in/go through Winter. -- Konig/talk 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right, NF manual had the answers^^ Well, I guess your explanation make sense since Tyrian characters arrive after the Shing Jea events. I suppose I hadn't thought about it enough >< Thank you for the clarification, I feel better^^ 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

War in Kryta[edit]

Any guesses when all this is going on? Obviously after the events of EOTN... I'm guessing 1280 DR --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 10:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess is also 1080 AE. But it could be in 1079 AE. -- Konig/talk 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
True, but 2 years seems like a better amount of time to start up an army. Well I suppose you could do it in a year, meh idk :P. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Technically, it would be 6 years, at least, 8 years at best. The War has been going on, more or less, since the end of Prophecies, which ended in 1072 AE. I surmise that the SB and the WM were both greatly crippled, and couldn't do much for a while, but we know that in 1078 AE, i.e., EN, there was a civil war as per the EN manual. -- Konig/talk 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the alternate area found in the .dat had "1079 AE" appended to the end. Manifold User Manifold Jupiter.jpg 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
True, but we don't have a D'Alessio Seaboard instance, and that mentioned instance is why I said it could be 1079 AE. Also note that it could be a flash-back instance, like in the BMPs. -- Konig/talk 04:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Konig, you are very wrong in your editing notes. The war has started recently. Basically, it was a small rebellion against the ruling power which is unfortunately(?) a well-known thing in RL. Now, if you'd remember that Salma declared war not so long ago, you'd know that 1079 AE is the true starting date of the civil war. I disagree with your edit as well. Everyone knows that it is the present day. I'm considering the undoing of your edit. --Thalador Doomspeaker 08:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Uh... the war starts in Prophecies... we take part in it as well. The EN manual states that there has been war since Dorian's death with warlords trying to take control of Kryta. The Declaration of War is the official start of the war for the royal family (i.e., Salma), not the true start of the war for the Shining Blade. I never said it wasn't the present day for the events we go through, but the lore event itself has been going on since 1072 AE. -- Konig/talk 03:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
i thought i remember Linsey saying some place that the war takes place 7 years after eye of the north, i seem to remember that being the reasoning behind why the gate to Boreal Station was working or something i dont really remember and i could be very wrong ill try and look it up... but that also means wading threw 9000 pages of archives...-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 11:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Old discussion. We know the War in Kryta content takes place in 1079 AE. The event started in 1072 AE between the SB and WM, and it has been going on since then while we're off in Cantha and Elona. We only see a glimpse of it during EN. There's no explanation for why the Boreal Station asura gate is working, but it's assumed that it was fixed in the year since EN's events. -- Konig/talk 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) well i am going to resurrect it, via saying shouldn't we add some of the stuff that happens at the end of bfla? like the end of the liongard? -User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 09:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ghosts of Ascalon Timeline[edit]

Since, I'm lazy , could someone update the timeline with this: (Sidenote Kryta was an Elonian colony o.O Satrec Pylonag 02:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Kryta is Tyrian not Elonian. The Crystal Desert contained the only (known) Elonian colony of Elonia. Clearly something is incorrect, either the poster or the timeline. 2) This timeline only holds dates of GW1 and prior. So the timeline shouldn't be updated, as the pre-GW1 (and during GW1) stuff is already up there. -- Konig/talk 02:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that we should wait until the actual book is out then why did you gleefully change around the GW2 timeline? He is just as reliable as the poster that showed the pre GW1 history.Satrec Pylonag 02:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Because 1) Ravious is more trustworthy (I've never heard of Ludmila, while Ravious is the main GW reporter for Kill Ten Rats). 2) There were far more changes and the GW2 timeline was full of approximations - i.e., speculation. If this did come from the iBook form of Ghosts of Ascalon, then it is far more accurate than we have, and even if it didn't we can undo that when the book comes out. The main difference is that the dates Ludmila gave are all pretty much the exact same as what we have, just a rewording. And that one line seems highly unlikely - though the book very well may disprove me. In which case then we can revert my edit. Until then, for this, better safe than sorry. The GW2 timeline was full of approximations and the information Ravious gave is just a better approximation if nothing else. -- Konig/talk 02:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I understand your reasoning. Then we shall wait until it is official until put onto the wiki. Of course this won't stop me from making my own hypothesises about the possible consequences of an Elonian Kryta...Satrec Pylonag 02:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you don't have to summarize your edits. You just can if you want. -- Konig/talk 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The book is out and the timeline is not GW2. GW2 begins after the events in the book(s) and after the Guild Wars: Beyond events. I believe we will see new GW1 content over the next months that includes a lot of the timeline events - at least those we can witness or in which we can participate. Darcy 18:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The book is meant to be for GW2's lore. I don't think "a lot" is the right term. The Foefire, for instance is 20 years after the Searing - we will see the establishment of Ebonhawke and we could see the unification of Kryta, but that's not entirely likely (if we do, then we may see the Foefire). We most likely won't see Primordus awaken, or any event after that. -- Konig/talk 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to Edit the time line to 1080ae because of hearts of the north etc. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Provide a source that Hearts of the North occurs in 1080 AE please. WiK takes place in 1079 AE and HotN occurs right after that. Nothing, as far as I know, states HotN is in 1080 AE. -- Konig/talk 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When will be timeline updated the Whitemantle con was today. edoera

Player-made events are not to be put on here and are not canon. -- Konig/talk 23:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

time line[edit]

isn't it two words? if not we need to set up a redirect because i was searching for it earlier and it came back with no results (worst search engine ever.)-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 10:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont thinks o, a redirect might be appropriate (or you might learn to spell or the searche ngine could stop sucking cause it does that a lot) 19:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
lol i think it is two words because just looking at books like ghost of ascalon they have it has two words (also its search engine accuse someone of spelling things wrong more when u can't even spell something that i spelled correctly above your post.) also just looked it up its a preference thing so i added the redirect to time line. -User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My brain cries at all this. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
like to point out that the ip said spelling and not grammar. -User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1582 CC[edit]

"Reiko rally's canthan" year duplicate of previous... what is the correct year? If this is correct, then the duplicates should be merged. --Falconeye 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

you should edit thr timelinr to say ministry of purity was defeated/Reoko Beowulf --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Except that it wasn't. Reiko was though. Konig/talk 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thanks for fixing the article beowulf --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Winds of Change ends in 1080 AE[edit]

Apparently when info for Part 3 was added to [ the official site], they snuck in a new date to the Timeline there:
1590 CC - Sweeping Social Reform

In the months that have followed the Ministry of Purity’s campaign against the Afflicted, Cantha has been blessed with renewed vigor and prosperity. The Afflicted have been vanquished, and the Jade Brotherhood and Am Fah are all but a distant memory. The traitorous Tengu have been exposed and routed. With the safety of all Canthans in mind, the Ministry now sets its sights on reforms to ensure a brighter future for all.
So it seems that Winds of Change ends in 1080 AE - updating main page to reflect this. Konig/talk 04:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with this.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 06:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
When is the location of Ebonhawke be known on the map? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
What? Also please sign your comments with 4 "~"'s thanks- User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering how does the withdrawing of the Ebon Vanguard effect the map? Beowulf


not a fan. far too flowery, lots of red links to articles that exist under other names. STDT + use a custom version of spoilers with 0.25em padding. -Chieftain Alex 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The only redlinks I can see that exist as other articles are the Great Corsair Wars which exists as The Great Corsair Wars for some reason, First Corsair War which exists as a section on that page, and Battle of Lion's Arch which exists as The Battle for Lion's Arch (which is about the quest, rather than the actual event in lore). The rest of the redlinks are articles that should exist, but don't (probably because someone changed the proper nouns to be lowercased to avoid redlinks).
GWW's STDT template is...pretty ugly, imo. That's why I used class="wikitable". But that's just preference. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I counted 11 redlinks. But then I don't really care about this page anyways ... Steve1 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
you should probably have mentioned that you'd copied the bottom of the timeline directly from the manual. -Chieftain Alex 22:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that (some of) the red links should be actual lore articles, but the descriptions present now are a little too poetic for encyclopaedia purposes.
On a tangent, the STDT template here has always been hideous but the community always seemed to prefer it over aesthetically-pleasing designs. - Infinite - talk 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Rewrite is missing a LOT of important information (example: the cataclysm/sinking of Orr), and uses GW2 sources. IMO, we should revert back to [1] and limit the timeline to GW1 sources/expanded universe, listing the GW2 changes only where they belong, on GW2:Timeline. Thrain | contribs 08:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think a lot of these issues had been fixed, and I'm not sure this revert could be said to have the consensus of the community? I might just be biased, due to the amount of time taken to revise this page (which imo has long-standing issues), and I could be wrong, so I'm checking here to see what people think. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'm wondering if it's a feasible/sensible idea to split the timeline page into three, one for each calendar. It can be as detailed, but specific to each continent.
I still think the wikitable aesthetic looks a million times better than the current STDT template. - Infinite - talk 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well you're biased towards the all-singing-all-dancing coloured STDTs from the GW2W so that is not too suprising :p
I agree with Thrain on the quality of the content. The RV has however used a slightly more recent version than the one Thrain linked (comparison of 7 Feb vs 30 May).
the manual icon isn't located in the right place for Vector though.. I'll see if I can fix that. -Chieftain Alex 09:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I mean the padding and the background colours on the wikitable design are simple and effective, it needn't be flashy. :P - Infinite - talk 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Aesthetically, the table CSS isn't the only issue, though. The fact that the old revision (the one that currently stands on the page) splits the timeline into three columns leaves big ugly white gaps in the page, which is only exacerbated by the black table border. It means that you can't go into much detail (and I understand that isn't the purpose of the timeline, but sometimes it's necessary to say more than just a couple words) without the text bunching up, and it struggles to account for the fact that events can happen across or be relevant to more than one continent. It's just not very readable at all, and that is a disservice to readers.
As for the content, I'd definitely disagree that the timeline is missing a lot of important information. It is important to know when King's Watch was founded, or when the Scriptures of Lyssa were dated, but are they necessary on an article whose purpose is to give a very brief history of the world and serve as an introduction to the lore? The original wiki timelines were written when not a lot of information was available, where dated information was worth included just by dint of the fact that it was dated. The world has expanded so much more since then.
And as for the writing style, are there any specific examples of overly "flowery language" that anyone could point out? If it's only an issue with one or two parts, then there's no reason why they can't be changed. An issue with a small part of the revision doesn't mean the whole thing needs to go. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"The traitorous Tengu have been exposed and routed. With the safety of all Canthans in mind, the Ministry now sets its sights on reforms to ensure a brighter future for all."
"incredible Asura technology, and the Ebon Vanguard, finally break the might of the religious cult in the Battle for Lion's Arch."
"Finding flaws in the system—the needless bureaucracy, political maneuverings, and personal agendas—she comes to the realization that something greater needs to happen if Cantha is ever going to be able to move forward."
"Nolani is founded. Palawa Joko invades Elona, captures most of the Northern Province, earns the sobriquet "Scourge of Vabbi"."
you really can't see why that isn't encylopaedic? I really do prefer splitting the continents up since it separates unrelated events. (reading downwards) -Chieftain Alex 17:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Format the article however you like. However, completely removing different pieces of lore and adding editorialized summaries of events is NOT the way to rewrite it. The new format is fine, but unless it has all of the information that is present in the old format, then I don't see how it could be considered better or even acceptable. (contd) As of now - and unchanged since this rewrite was originally done - there are major chunks of lore missing from the current revision. I can't list all of them due to space/thoroughness, but here's a few examples:
  • Pyre's revolt
  • everything involving the Raisu palace
  • Kryta being originally established by Elonians
And many, many, more. Unless someone is willing to go through, re-add all the information that was left out and make this page more accurate, then this version is very clearly unacceptable. And we should revert to the old, accurate, Timeline. Thrain | contribs 16:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope those particular examples weren't intended to be the best ones, because Pyre's revolt is patently GW2 lore, who originally founded Kryta was an accidental omission and is easily rectified (see!), and the dates surrounding Raisu Palace are wholly irrelevant to the lore of the world as a whole. The timeline articles are supposed to serve as a very brief introduction to the history of the Guild Wars universe, which new players/readers can skim through and click anything that interests them. Including an excessive amount of detail on the dates throughout history that Raisu Palace has been destroyed, built, modified etc. is distracting and actually detrimental to that goal.
The only other thing I would ask would be where on earth do you get the claim that this page is inaccurate? Pretty much all of it was taken from the manuals, the novels, or the official website. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It lacks a lot of the information that it had before the redesign. I picked out examples, not every specific instance. Fixing my examples doesn't fix the overall article. Thrain | contribs 07:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, reverting because of "lack of interest" seems to be very much against the spirit of a wiki, especially when I have actually taken the time to address your concerns and each example one-by-one. I still don't understand what your issue with the article is, and you haven't really addressed my counter-arguments, so I don't see how you can revert. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have said several times, this version of the page is incomplete, has invalid statements, uses sources unrelated to gw1, and is not actively being fixed by anyone. Reverting to an incomplete and inaccurate page with no intention of fixing it is much more against the spirit of the wiki than a more complete, outdated style. Thrain | contribs 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we please stop the reverting for now and discuss this first?
I personally like the “new” format, with just a single column for all the events. It makes the table a lot nicer to the eyes and allows for easier comprehension. Especially since some years are exclusive to single continents, apply to all continents, or at least share an similar event on all continents, splitting it up does not really make that much sense.
But of course, we should also not lose any information we have with the old format when switching. So maybe we could rewrite it by taking the original 3-column layout and merging it into a single column first. That way we also keep the factual style. poke | talk 14:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming all the inaccuracies and left out information are fixed, then I still feel the 3 - column layout is superior. The history in Guild Wars is told in three main segments - Tyrian, Canthan, Elonian - and there aren't a lot of places that overlap. By combining the three sections, it becomes hard locate a specific event, or tell which historical event had effect where. As examples of each: The date of the end of the Tengu Wars isn't immediately apparent, because it occurs in the same year as the Second Treaty of Lion's Arch. And, "Great Fortress of Jahai established at the Grand Cataract." makes no reference to the location of either landmark, so someone who hasn't played nightfall could easily assume those locations are in Cantha, but are inaccessible in the game, much like Kaziin Monastery.
That being said, I'd be content with it simply being as complete and informative as the older layout. Thrain | contribs 15:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Thrain on this one: 3 columns are vastly superiour to only one: The way it is now i can immediately see whether something only affected 1 continent or all three. I'm fine with using the newer colour scheme, but the basic layout should stay. Steve1 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Why was this done? This article was called "Timeline" for years without issue. Chronology of Tyria makes no sense in comparison, when it is a timeline. Was Falconeye trying to create a consistency with Religions of Tyria and Governments of Tyria? Because if so the only reason those are called such as I can imagine is to denote that they're of the game's religions and governments (not that such should need denotion). Suggest moving it back. 08:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chronology - root article/category are consistent for all wikis. --Falconeye (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest moving it back. Whether or not it's the 'root article' for the category doesn't really matter, as a Timeline isn't directly comparable to Governments or Religions. Thrain | contribs 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Table look[edit]

I would suggest to improve the look of table from the gameplay point. While the table contains many events and episodes from Tyrian history, it's not enough clear which exactly episodes are playable and which are not, even though the campaigns are mentioned somehow. The playable episodes and historical periods can be shown more clear: for example, the cells can be marked with coloured background, maybe also with mouseover (idea taken from the Calendar). And could it be possible to add the BMP events, which are not specifically mentioned now? Only the players with some historical knowledge can recognise the events of Turai's and Togo's stories, while Gwen's and Saul's stories are completely missed. All these missions are important too, from both lore and gameplay points. Thanks! -- 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)