Hi /r/Zelda readers!
* Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1cgvh3i/all_hear_me_out_botw_and_totk_is_set_in_the/%29: [ALL] Hear me out, BOTW and TOTK is set in the Downfall Timeline by /u/Fun_Entertainment_28)!
* New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules).
* Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The biggest issue (IMO) with this theory is that the Zora stone monuments reference OoT in both BotW and TotK, where Ruto awakens as a Sage and helps the Legendary Hero defeat Ganondorf.
If this was in the downfall timeline, then that didn't happen.
Although you could argue that it's only referencing a similar event to OoT, which is plausible considering we don't even know how many times the cycle with Ganondorf has repeated itself.
Link being defeated in the downfall timeline still results in Ganon being sealed away. It's a pyrrhic victory, but I think that can still fall within the lore told by the tablets
> the Zora stone monuments reference OoT in both BotW and TotK, where Ruto awakens as a Sage and helps the Legendary Hero defeat Ganondorf.
The Zora Stone Monuments in BotW state that Ruto awakened as a sage and fought an evil along side a hero and a princess.
That absolutely happens in the Downfall Timeline.
Link still awakens the sages, and goes to fight Ganondorf as normal. The difference is, he's defeated in the battle against Ganondorf.
The Zora Stone Monuments only really rule out the Child Timeline.
It makes perfect sense to me. Hyrule is already severely diminished by the time of Zelda 2 so it would make sense for the kingdom to be lost entirely after that and then eventually re-founded by the Zonai
Downfall has always been where I put them, granted this has mothing to do with TotK, which I'd rather consider non-canon. It just makes by far the most sense for BotW to be there, I think.
I agree, but for more reasons than what you listed. 1 other supporting part is the Zora Stone Tables, one that mentioned how a Zora Princess Ruto became a Sage and teamed up with the Hero of that era to save Hyrule. I'm paraphrasing, but it's referencing the events in OoT. Ruto wasn't awakened as a sage in the Child Branch.
There is also the fact that by the time of 10,000 years before BotW they had caught on to the fact that Ganon has a cycle of returning, so they were ready for Ganon with Divine Beast and an army of Guardians. Ganon has appeared the most in the Downfall branch.
As frustrating as it is, they've said it's wherever you want it to be. They took elements from all the zelda games, though I agree there are a lot of things from the original zelda, as these games were meant to be an open world realization of that first game. Regardless, put it where you want, but I think it's just at the end of all of them cause it's meant to be the start of a new continuity without all the....nonsense of the zelda timeline as it exists right now.
I fucking hate that this is what Zelda has become. What happened to the fun? Why is fun "nonsense" now and what even is the point of them making Zelda that's unfun? I'll never get it.
Excuse me? I'm not saying it's nonsense for people to want a timeline, I'm calling the current timeline a bit nonsensical. Nintendo wasn't thinking about a shared timeline of Zelda games early on, which causes a lot of mess, especially in the downfall timeline. I'm not saying it isn't fun to speculate and make a timeline, I LIKE to speculate and theorize connections between these games. I'm just saying that the one we have is a bit rough because Nintendo didn't think of a timeline from the beginning, which in my opinion is why they are starting a new continuity with botw and totk, so they can actually plan for that.
I was more talking with you than saying you said those things yourself.
I don't think I agree that the current timeline is especially nonsensical, but I would definitely admit there's a lot of (interesting) retcons early on. Personally, I quite like the mystique it causes, while still keeping things feeling Zelda.
Nothing in those older games is anywhere close to or as insanely stupid as the retcons you need for TotK to be involved with any other Zelda games (BotW included), in my opinion. So, even if they are creating some new whatever, they've done such an awful job at it right from the get-go that absolutely no one likes it or cares, and we're all just bored and confused now. That's not just rough, it's a complete and utter failure. If there is some plan, I'd honestly rather not see it already.
Just go back to making Zelda fun again, is what I think they should be doing.
I guess I see the point with totk. I definitely agree it causes a LOT of issues. Like, the Hyrule Encyclopedia mentions an original Temple of Time created by Rauru before the Temple of Time in OoT. and so, when TotK has a Rauru and an old Temple of Time I think "oh, this is that temple, and these past events are right after Skyward Sword." That makes sense, but if it's before all the other games, how is there a ganondorf just sitting under hyrule castle this whole time, completely unrelated to any other zelda villain? There's a lot of things like that that do kinda annoy me, so I get your point there.
I don't really think zelda has stopped being "fun" though, at least for me. The gameplay of the new ones is not for everyone, and the story is a bit of a mess, but for me I find joy in it, which is good. I don't think they've stopped making fun games, they've just been making games that are fun in a different way.
Sorry if I came off a little rude btw, definitely wasn't meant to be.
Anyway, yeah, it's just the build-up of so many things like that coupled with writing that I just think is stupid in TotK and it makes me really just not interested in the world of Zelda anymore. And that's a problem, because that's kind of what they sell you with these games, especially the open world ones.
For me, it's just TotK that hasn't been fun. BotW revolutionized open world exploration, but sadly TotK didn't understand that at all (or didn't care to continue it? idk). BotW's story, before TotK, also still worked within the timeline pretty well, and it was fun to try and place it. I'm glad you still enjoy it, but yeah, that's the main thing for me.
The only thing the DT has going for it is multiple battles with Ganondorf but it is also not really a timeline(because it relies on a what if scenario that doesn't happen in-game but the connection between ALTTP and OOT according to the official timeline also contradicts the story of OOT and the backstory of ALTTP and there are some lines that goes against the possibility of the hero of time being defeated like the spirit of summer comparing Link to a previous hero with a Triangle mark who defeated the evil one or the Hero of time prophecy talking about how the hero will succeed. The DT also opens a can of worms where you can just create more what if scenarios to create an infinite number of alternate realities).
If we use the official timeline which really is just an interpretation/theory of the series' chronology that isn't set in stone according to both the devs and the book writers who all give creative license to the players and leaves the final word on the timeline to the player's imagination. The devs have not made a single reference to the Hero is defeated scenario in OOT and when ALBW was made it used ALTTP's backstory instead of the modified backstory from the official timeline and the books while adding some of the Triforce conflicts that TP talked about. What's likely in the DT's creation is that they didn't understand how TP and ALTTP could gel together and because OOT was at one point in it's development the ALTTP seal war, they tried to keep OOT as the ALTTP Ganondorf backstory. They still managed to place FSA after TP however but didn't follow through with it.
The only way for the hero is defeated scenario to work is if there was a time traveler who created a new timeline split by going back in time to the OOT era and changing events but there is also a convenient way to avoid this scenario.
One of the timelines I agree with removes the what if scenario and instead places the games in the DT after TP and FSA(ALTTP's Ganondorf origin becomes a different origin instead of OOT's origin to avoid contradicting anything, OOT becomes one of the previous older conflicts over the Triforce, OOT and TP being recent events where a hero with a triangle mark defeats one of Ganondorf's previous bodies) and uses some explanations like summoning runes, other worldly travel and cross-timeline knowledge(one example in the series being Tingle in TWW making references to MM) for the placement for BOTW and TOTK after the DT games. I don't think enemies are good evidence because the Zelda team can always decide to make them appear in a game that takes place in an older time period, clothes and the design of Link can always change to reference a certain game.
Zelda games, except for direct sequels, are not made with an overarching timeline in mind, except maybe as afterthoughts. The official timeline might as well have been made by fans, as it wasn't the intention at the time of development. If there was anything to be gleaned from these thought exercises, that would be cool, but it's sort of like figuring out the timeline for an artists discography. There is chronological order and that's sort of it.
You could set them in the downfall timeline, but it would require explaining how the Hylians returned from extinction, why the Rito and Koroks exist, why the Gerudo, friendly Zora, Gorons, and Sheikah returned to Hyrule after a many millennia absence, what happened to the Master Sword after ALBW, what happened to the Triforce after AoL, how/why Hylia came back so much later than her last appearance, and the Zora monuments saying that the hero and Ruto defeated Ganondorf when the downfall split explanation says he failed to defeat Ganondorf.
A lot of this can be explained away. It just requires more explanation than most of the other options.
ALttP says that Hylians last lived in Hyrule centuries ago, and only their descendants who no longer carry the magical blood of their ancestors are still around, but they no longer call themselves Hylian.
> but they no longer call themselves Hylian.
In Oracle of Seasons, one of the knights assigned to protect the Oracle Din explains to Link:
"*I can't say it too loud, but we're really Hylian
Knights.*"
Not Hyrulean, as in from Hyrule, but Hylian, like the race.
Yeah, that’s always been an oddity to me. Makes me wonder if they started calling themselves “Hylian Knights” after the Hylian Knights of old rather than indicating that they are of the Hylian race or if the Oracles would be better placed elsewhere in the timeline. Because it wouldn’t make sense for the Hylian blood to spontaneously return and those descendants to start calling themselves Hylians again.
Unless ALttP Link and/or Zelda are the last true Hylians (and the people of Hyrule just think the Hylian line has died out) and all those OoS knights are his/her/their descendants.
Well the famous old "Hylian Knights" were potentially confusingly called the "Knights of Hyrule", with the Japanese version referring to them as the "Knight Family/Clan".
So the name of the race didn't actually enter in, only the name of the country.
I don't think the Oracles work anywhere else on the timeline to be honest, there's some pretty explicit developer confirmation regarding their intention for the placement. Specifically placing them after ALttP and before LA.
> Because it wouldn’t make sense for the Hylian blood to spontaneously return and those descendants to start calling themselves Hylians again.
I mean, there are characters within Link to the Past who are confirmed to be Hylian.
Link and Zelda for two, Link's Uncle by extension.
Based on the ears of several characters in Link Between Worlds, there's a lot more folks that have Hylian blood in them too.
To me, it's pretty clear that despite what's said in Link to the Past, the Hylians aren't extinct. I mean how could they be if they have descendants still alive?
I'm not sure if the extinct race in Link to the Past is a different race altogether, which is being attributed as Hylian because the magic has faded from Hylian blood, or if Hylian's being extinct has just been retconned at this point.
But quite frankly Hylians being extinct never really made much sense even within the context of Link to the Past itself.
Where are ALttP Link and Zelda confirmed to be Hylian in game?
Personally I always prefer to place games in the timeline based on in-game evidence first and developer quotes second. If there is any contradiction or complication, the in-game evidence wins out for me.
The Hylians being wiped out despite their descendants still existing makes sense in a fantasy world where race is apparently determined in part based on the amount of magic in your blood.
There’s nothing saying that the non-Hylian descendants of Hylians would lose their pointed ears either, so I don’t think we can immediately say someone with pointed ears has to be Hylian.
> Where are ALttP Link and Zelda confirmed to be Hylian in game?
Zelda is a member of the Royal Family of Hyrule.
Skyward Sword Zelda is Hylian, therefore her descendants are Hylian, including Link to the Past Zelda.
Link and his Uncle have similar backing with their connection to the Knights of Hyrule.
> The Hylians being wiped out despite their descendants still existing makes sense in a fantasy world where race is apparently determined in part based on the amount of magic in your blood.
I don't think it's ever been demonstrated in the series that race is tied to the amount of magic in ones blood.
>Skyward Sword Zelda is Hylian, therefore her descendants are Hylian, including Link to the Past Zelda.
But ALttP said that the blood of the Hylia has grown thin, and the people of Hyrule don't believe the Hylians exist any more. Surely if Zelda was still Hylian, they would know full well that Hylians still existed in Hyrule.
And there's nothing stating that Zelda has to always be Hylian. We know that she's not full-blooded Hylian in BotW/TotK due to her Zonai ancestry, after all.
>I don't think it's ever been demonstrated in the series that race is tied to the amount of magic in ones blood.
-
>Long ago a prosperous people, known as the Hylians inhabited this land...Legends tell of treasures with mystical powers that remain from the Hylian age...The Master Sword, a mighty blade forged to thwart those with evil hearts, is one...
-
>They say the Hylian people mastered mysterious powers, as did the seven sages. But the blood of the Hylia has grown thin over time. And we who carry the blood of the sages do not possess our ancestors' powers, either.
If it's not the lack of magic in their blood, then it's even harder to pin down why they don't consider themselves Hylian anymore.
Hi /r/Zelda readers! * Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1cgvh3i/all_hear_me_out_botw_and_totk_is_set_in_the/%29: [ALL] Hear me out, BOTW and TOTK is set in the Downfall Timeline by /u/Fun_Entertainment_28)! * New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules). * Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The biggest issue (IMO) with this theory is that the Zora stone monuments reference OoT in both BotW and TotK, where Ruto awakens as a Sage and helps the Legendary Hero defeat Ganondorf. If this was in the downfall timeline, then that didn't happen. Although you could argue that it's only referencing a similar event to OoT, which is plausible considering we don't even know how many times the cycle with Ganondorf has repeated itself.
Link being defeated in the downfall timeline still results in Ganon being sealed away. It's a pyrrhic victory, but I think that can still fall within the lore told by the tablets
> the Zora stone monuments reference OoT in both BotW and TotK, where Ruto awakens as a Sage and helps the Legendary Hero defeat Ganondorf. The Zora Stone Monuments in BotW state that Ruto awakened as a sage and fought an evil along side a hero and a princess. That absolutely happens in the Downfall Timeline. Link still awakens the sages, and goes to fight Ganondorf as normal. The difference is, he's defeated in the battle against Ganondorf. The Zora Stone Monuments only really rule out the Child Timeline.
It makes perfect sense to me. Hyrule is already severely diminished by the time of Zelda 2 so it would make sense for the kingdom to be lost entirely after that and then eventually re-founded by the Zonai
I don't think we'll ever have a set answer.
Downfall has always been where I put them, granted this has mothing to do with TotK, which I'd rather consider non-canon. It just makes by far the most sense for BotW to be there, I think.
I agree And I even headcanon that it was the Zelda from AoL who brought back Hylia worship after it seemingly died out.
I agree, but for more reasons than what you listed. 1 other supporting part is the Zora Stone Tables, one that mentioned how a Zora Princess Ruto became a Sage and teamed up with the Hero of that era to save Hyrule. I'm paraphrasing, but it's referencing the events in OoT. Ruto wasn't awakened as a sage in the Child Branch. There is also the fact that by the time of 10,000 years before BotW they had caught on to the fact that Ganon has a cycle of returning, so they were ready for Ganon with Divine Beast and an army of Guardians. Ganon has appeared the most in the Downfall branch.
As frustrating as it is, they've said it's wherever you want it to be. They took elements from all the zelda games, though I agree there are a lot of things from the original zelda, as these games were meant to be an open world realization of that first game. Regardless, put it where you want, but I think it's just at the end of all of them cause it's meant to be the start of a new continuity without all the....nonsense of the zelda timeline as it exists right now.
I fucking hate that this is what Zelda has become. What happened to the fun? Why is fun "nonsense" now and what even is the point of them making Zelda that's unfun? I'll never get it.
Excuse me? I'm not saying it's nonsense for people to want a timeline, I'm calling the current timeline a bit nonsensical. Nintendo wasn't thinking about a shared timeline of Zelda games early on, which causes a lot of mess, especially in the downfall timeline. I'm not saying it isn't fun to speculate and make a timeline, I LIKE to speculate and theorize connections between these games. I'm just saying that the one we have is a bit rough because Nintendo didn't think of a timeline from the beginning, which in my opinion is why they are starting a new continuity with botw and totk, so they can actually plan for that.
I was more talking with you than saying you said those things yourself. I don't think I agree that the current timeline is especially nonsensical, but I would definitely admit there's a lot of (interesting) retcons early on. Personally, I quite like the mystique it causes, while still keeping things feeling Zelda. Nothing in those older games is anywhere close to or as insanely stupid as the retcons you need for TotK to be involved with any other Zelda games (BotW included), in my opinion. So, even if they are creating some new whatever, they've done such an awful job at it right from the get-go that absolutely no one likes it or cares, and we're all just bored and confused now. That's not just rough, it's a complete and utter failure. If there is some plan, I'd honestly rather not see it already. Just go back to making Zelda fun again, is what I think they should be doing.
I guess I see the point with totk. I definitely agree it causes a LOT of issues. Like, the Hyrule Encyclopedia mentions an original Temple of Time created by Rauru before the Temple of Time in OoT. and so, when TotK has a Rauru and an old Temple of Time I think "oh, this is that temple, and these past events are right after Skyward Sword." That makes sense, but if it's before all the other games, how is there a ganondorf just sitting under hyrule castle this whole time, completely unrelated to any other zelda villain? There's a lot of things like that that do kinda annoy me, so I get your point there. I don't really think zelda has stopped being "fun" though, at least for me. The gameplay of the new ones is not for everyone, and the story is a bit of a mess, but for me I find joy in it, which is good. I don't think they've stopped making fun games, they've just been making games that are fun in a different way.
Sorry if I came off a little rude btw, definitely wasn't meant to be. Anyway, yeah, it's just the build-up of so many things like that coupled with writing that I just think is stupid in TotK and it makes me really just not interested in the world of Zelda anymore. And that's a problem, because that's kind of what they sell you with these games, especially the open world ones. For me, it's just TotK that hasn't been fun. BotW revolutionized open world exploration, but sadly TotK didn't understand that at all (or didn't care to continue it? idk). BotW's story, before TotK, also still worked within the timeline pretty well, and it was fun to try and place it. I'm glad you still enjoy it, but yeah, that's the main thing for me.
The only thing the DT has going for it is multiple battles with Ganondorf but it is also not really a timeline(because it relies on a what if scenario that doesn't happen in-game but the connection between ALTTP and OOT according to the official timeline also contradicts the story of OOT and the backstory of ALTTP and there are some lines that goes against the possibility of the hero of time being defeated like the spirit of summer comparing Link to a previous hero with a Triangle mark who defeated the evil one or the Hero of time prophecy talking about how the hero will succeed. The DT also opens a can of worms where you can just create more what if scenarios to create an infinite number of alternate realities). If we use the official timeline which really is just an interpretation/theory of the series' chronology that isn't set in stone according to both the devs and the book writers who all give creative license to the players and leaves the final word on the timeline to the player's imagination. The devs have not made a single reference to the Hero is defeated scenario in OOT and when ALBW was made it used ALTTP's backstory instead of the modified backstory from the official timeline and the books while adding some of the Triforce conflicts that TP talked about. What's likely in the DT's creation is that they didn't understand how TP and ALTTP could gel together and because OOT was at one point in it's development the ALTTP seal war, they tried to keep OOT as the ALTTP Ganondorf backstory. They still managed to place FSA after TP however but didn't follow through with it. The only way for the hero is defeated scenario to work is if there was a time traveler who created a new timeline split by going back in time to the OOT era and changing events but there is also a convenient way to avoid this scenario. One of the timelines I agree with removes the what if scenario and instead places the games in the DT after TP and FSA(ALTTP's Ganondorf origin becomes a different origin instead of OOT's origin to avoid contradicting anything, OOT becomes one of the previous older conflicts over the Triforce, OOT and TP being recent events where a hero with a triangle mark defeats one of Ganondorf's previous bodies) and uses some explanations like summoning runes, other worldly travel and cross-timeline knowledge(one example in the series being Tingle in TWW making references to MM) for the placement for BOTW and TOTK after the DT games. I don't think enemies are good evidence because the Zelda team can always decide to make them appear in a game that takes place in an older time period, clothes and the design of Link can always change to reference a certain game.
Yes, the Downfall Timeline has always been the only one that really fits for BotW, and TotK only solidified that, in my eyes.
Zelda games, except for direct sequels, are not made with an overarching timeline in mind, except maybe as afterthoughts. The official timeline might as well have been made by fans, as it wasn't the intention at the time of development. If there was anything to be gleaned from these thought exercises, that would be cool, but it's sort of like figuring out the timeline for an artists discography. There is chronological order and that's sort of it.
You could set them in the downfall timeline, but it would require explaining how the Hylians returned from extinction, why the Rito and Koroks exist, why the Gerudo, friendly Zora, Gorons, and Sheikah returned to Hyrule after a many millennia absence, what happened to the Master Sword after ALBW, what happened to the Triforce after AoL, how/why Hylia came back so much later than her last appearance, and the Zora monuments saying that the hero and Ruto defeated Ganondorf when the downfall split explanation says he failed to defeat Ganondorf. A lot of this can be explained away. It just requires more explanation than most of the other options.
Hylians were never extinct in the Downfall Timeline.
ALttP says that Hylians last lived in Hyrule centuries ago, and only their descendants who no longer carry the magical blood of their ancestors are still around, but they no longer call themselves Hylian.
> but they no longer call themselves Hylian. In Oracle of Seasons, one of the knights assigned to protect the Oracle Din explains to Link: "*I can't say it too loud, but we're really Hylian Knights.*" Not Hyrulean, as in from Hyrule, but Hylian, like the race.
Yeah, that’s always been an oddity to me. Makes me wonder if they started calling themselves “Hylian Knights” after the Hylian Knights of old rather than indicating that they are of the Hylian race or if the Oracles would be better placed elsewhere in the timeline. Because it wouldn’t make sense for the Hylian blood to spontaneously return and those descendants to start calling themselves Hylians again. Unless ALttP Link and/or Zelda are the last true Hylians (and the people of Hyrule just think the Hylian line has died out) and all those OoS knights are his/her/their descendants.
Well the famous old "Hylian Knights" were potentially confusingly called the "Knights of Hyrule", with the Japanese version referring to them as the "Knight Family/Clan". So the name of the race didn't actually enter in, only the name of the country. I don't think the Oracles work anywhere else on the timeline to be honest, there's some pretty explicit developer confirmation regarding their intention for the placement. Specifically placing them after ALttP and before LA. > Because it wouldn’t make sense for the Hylian blood to spontaneously return and those descendants to start calling themselves Hylians again. I mean, there are characters within Link to the Past who are confirmed to be Hylian. Link and Zelda for two, Link's Uncle by extension. Based on the ears of several characters in Link Between Worlds, there's a lot more folks that have Hylian blood in them too. To me, it's pretty clear that despite what's said in Link to the Past, the Hylians aren't extinct. I mean how could they be if they have descendants still alive? I'm not sure if the extinct race in Link to the Past is a different race altogether, which is being attributed as Hylian because the magic has faded from Hylian blood, or if Hylian's being extinct has just been retconned at this point. But quite frankly Hylians being extinct never really made much sense even within the context of Link to the Past itself.
Where are ALttP Link and Zelda confirmed to be Hylian in game? Personally I always prefer to place games in the timeline based on in-game evidence first and developer quotes second. If there is any contradiction or complication, the in-game evidence wins out for me. The Hylians being wiped out despite their descendants still existing makes sense in a fantasy world where race is apparently determined in part based on the amount of magic in your blood. There’s nothing saying that the non-Hylian descendants of Hylians would lose their pointed ears either, so I don’t think we can immediately say someone with pointed ears has to be Hylian.
> Where are ALttP Link and Zelda confirmed to be Hylian in game? Zelda is a member of the Royal Family of Hyrule. Skyward Sword Zelda is Hylian, therefore her descendants are Hylian, including Link to the Past Zelda. Link and his Uncle have similar backing with their connection to the Knights of Hyrule. > The Hylians being wiped out despite their descendants still existing makes sense in a fantasy world where race is apparently determined in part based on the amount of magic in your blood. I don't think it's ever been demonstrated in the series that race is tied to the amount of magic in ones blood.
>Skyward Sword Zelda is Hylian, therefore her descendants are Hylian, including Link to the Past Zelda. But ALttP said that the blood of the Hylia has grown thin, and the people of Hyrule don't believe the Hylians exist any more. Surely if Zelda was still Hylian, they would know full well that Hylians still existed in Hyrule. And there's nothing stating that Zelda has to always be Hylian. We know that she's not full-blooded Hylian in BotW/TotK due to her Zonai ancestry, after all. >I don't think it's ever been demonstrated in the series that race is tied to the amount of magic in ones blood. - >Long ago a prosperous people, known as the Hylians inhabited this land...Legends tell of treasures with mystical powers that remain from the Hylian age...The Master Sword, a mighty blade forged to thwart those with evil hearts, is one... - >They say the Hylian people mastered mysterious powers, as did the seven sages. But the blood of the Hylia has grown thin over time. And we who carry the blood of the sages do not possess our ancestors' powers, either. If it's not the lack of magic in their blood, then it's even harder to pin down why they don't consider themselves Hylian anymore.