UESP Forums

Okay, I've been reading some interesting finds from people recently playing Arena, that I've not heard of from anywhere else, so I guess I should share my discovery as well.
In the opening scenes we catch an obvious typo when we read about Uriel Septim VII in one slide and Uriel Septim IV in the next set. Oops. Looking closer, others caught a misplaced comma and the ever maddening conundrum of "affect" vs "effect". (I don't know how many times I've had to look that up.) And finally there's the "Emperor's Guard" instead of the titled "Imperial Guard" and "492". Tiber takes control in 2E 896 and starts the 3rd Era; and Arena starts 3E 389. So, obviously "492 after Tiber Septim took control" is an error.
Well it "is"; but it "wasn't". You see, we don't learn about Tiber declaring the beginning of the 3rd Era until Daggerfall. There's this little sentence at the top of page 39 of the Arena game manual that says this: "Each Era lasts for 1000 years". So it "is" incorrect, with our information from Daggerfall onward. But it "wasn't" an error at the release of the game.

I'd also noticed that statement in the manual, and in general I agree with your assessment.

But 492 might still be a bit of an error, because it doesn't quite fit the math:

2E 896 + 492 = 2E 1388
2E 1388 - 1000 = 3E 388

So if an era is 1000 years long, 492 years after Tiber Septim took control should be 3E 388, not 3E 389.

If an era were actually 999 years long, then the year 2E 999 would presumably be followed by the year 3E 1, in which case 492 years after 2E 896 would indeed be 3E 389:

2E 896 + 492 = 2E 1388
2E 1388 - 999 = 3E 389

However, the number of years in an era isn't the only issue, because we also need to consider what to call the first year of an era-- year 1, or year 0? My math in the "999 years per era" explanation doesn't hold up if an era begins with year 0, and the lore after Arena does refer to "Year Aught" (0) of the Third Era.

The math works:
- An era is 999 years long.
- The years of an era are numbered as Year 1 through Year 999.

The math doesn't work:
- An era is 1000 years long.
- It doesn't matter whether the years are numbered as Year 1 through Year 1000 or as Year 0 through Year 999.

The math could also work if different eras lasted for a different number of years, but only if 2E 999 were followed by 3E 1, or if 2E 998 were followed by 3E 0.

Another possible explanation is that the math is actually correct, but only appears to be incorrect due to the specific dates involved. For example, January 1, 2020 was only 1 day after December 31, 2019, so we can't reasonably refer to it as being "1 year after," even though 2020 is 1 year after 2019. So it could be that the date of Uriel Septim VII's birthday in 3E 389 was indeed 492 years plus some number of days after the date when Tiber Septim took control in 2E 896.

I tend to believe your last option is the most reasonable.

While 492 is specific, it's approximate. We can easily agree that it isn't intended to be exactly 365 days. We don't know the exact date for year 2E 896, and when we wake up in the dungeon it's already Hearthfire (November EDIT September) of 3E 389. We also know that "492 years after" refers specifically to the new threat, not the beginning date of our play. Some time later you are imprisoned and the game gives us the date 3E 389. Did all those things happen in 1 day? 1 month? 1 year?

When the math comes within one year of what we expect to see, given the note in the manual, I feel we can be confident that it was intended and not simply a typo or a number someone forgot to change. It's true it could still be a typo and was intended to be 493, but I feel if it wasn't for Daggerfall adding the declaration of the 3rd era when Septim was crowned, we probably wouldn't even be talking about it.

Okay, I've done a little more research, and the math is actually correct-- it jives with an era lasting 1000 years, as well as with Uriel Septim VII's birthday being 492 years after 2E 896:

- According to the in-game text for the various holidays, as well as in the Codex Scientia (see page 151), the Emperor's Birthday is the 30th of Frostfall.

- According to the in-game text if we check our status ("S") right after we wake up in the Imperial Dungeons, "The date is Tirdas, 1st of Morning Star in the year 3E 389."

- According to the information about the calendar in The Elder Scrolls: Arena Player's Guide (see page 39), Morning Star is the 1st month of the year, and Frostfall is the 10th month of the year.

- That means the date of Uriel Septim VII's 43rd birthday must have been 30th of Frostfall in the year 3E 388, or 492 years after 2E 896.

- It also means our awakening in the Imperial Dungeons on the 1st of Morning Star in the year 3E 389 was 2 months and 1 day after Uriel Septim VII's 43rd birthday.

- But note that we wake up right at or just after midnight.

And that actually conforms to the in-game text right after the title screen as well as when we start a new character:

- The text that comes right after the title screen doesn't say that the Emperor was betrayed on his 43rd birthday, only that "jealous hearts desire the throne and plot his downfall."

- The text when we start a new character says that "The Emperor is betrayed" and "After months of preparation Jagar Tharn, takes the throne."

Thus, Jagar Tharn apparently spent at least two months plotting and preparing for the Emperor's downfall; he betrayed the Emperor sometime on the 30th of Frostfall, the last day of the year 3E 388; and we wake up in our cell some hours later, just at the start of the 1st of Morning Star, the first day of the year 3E 389.

Great detective work. ...and with the inclusion of the Emperor's birth month - the puzzle is complete.

Now this doesn't change that answer in any way, but does add another mystery. Although I botched the translation to the Gregorian calendar, all my new games do in fact start "Tirdas, 1st of Hearthfire 3E 389" (at 12:00 Noon).

Whether it is the "1st of Morning Star" or the "1st of Hearthfire"; The Kings 43rd birthday is the 30th of Frostfall 3E 388, 492 years after Tiber Septim took control and kept the peace. And it is the following year 3E 389 that we awake in prison and start the game.

But why do we see different dates? My version is 1.07 and I'm guessing (hoping) you are playing a slightly earlier version. This would mean they made a minor correction to allow it to fully match with the story version starting on page 1 of the Players Manual where our hero who wakes up in prison is named Talin. Ria Silmane appears before Talin and says: "Talin, do you remember the last time we saw each other? It was at the Mid Year's festival. I fear that is where the evil took form."

If my game version starting on the 1st of Hearthfire was an intentional update/correction, then putting all the information together, the events appear to unfold like this:

1. 492 years after Tiber takes control, in 3E 388 we have (a) a new threat, (b) the kings 43rd birthday, and (c) a plot for his downfall. It is probably intended that all those things are the same time, but not necessary as long as we understand they all occur in 3E 388.

2. Because the kings birthday is the next to the last day of the year Frostfall (30th Frostfall), any later months mentioned (EDIT: those later than Sun's Dusk or Evening Star) occur in 3E 389 [EDIT: I keep looking in the manual at the list of months organized by weather. Frostfall is actually October.]

3. Because of the story information in the manual, and supported by the game text; "After months of preparation Jagar Tharn, takes the throne.", we can interpret that Tharn's plot was not enacted on the Kings birthday, but months later on the 16th of Mid Year (The Mid Year Celebration)

{It could be interpreted that after he kidnapped the king, it was several months of preparation before he was able to take the throne. But this seems unlikely. It would have been a problem if the king was missing for a few months.}
{It's also possible that Tharn kidnaped the king on his birthday and takes the throne. The reference to "months of planning" is simply to say "Finally, all my work has paid off" and Ria's mention of the evil taking form during the Mid Year Celebration is more of a reference to when she was killed.}

4. And finally - You awake in prison on the 1st of Hearthfire 3E 389

Truthfully, without the mention of the Mid Year Festival, I like your games version where it seems like everything happens rather quickly. Though I can see a version where it takes time to execute the plot and then even more time for some people to start asking the wrong questions. Ria discovers the plot during the Mid Year Celebration and is killed for her discovery and then Talin (player) starts asking too many questions about Ria and he is thrown in prison.

So....What version are you playing. (fingers crossed)

EDIT: (grammar)

I'm playing version 1.06, which I prefer on the grounds that (if I understand correctly) it was the last version released by Bethesda back when the game was still sold in the marketplace. The extra stuff that was added later in version 1.07 for The Elder Scrolls Anthology seems "unauthentic" to me. (Likewise, when I finally get around to playing Daggerfall I have no intention of playing the Unity version, although that has no relevance to this conversation! ) I don't know why they would change the date you wake up on for version 1.07, and I've never played that version. I did receive it from GOG.com when I purchased Battlespire and Redguard, but I haven't installed it yet. Now I'm curious to know what all the differences are between 1.06 and 1.07, aside from the added voice acting!



That might indeed be why they decided to change the date of our awakening. But if so, I don't think it was necessary, because the in-game text when starting a new character doesn't say that Ria Silmane and Talin were together on the Emperor's birthday. There's no reason why it couldn't have been the Mid Year's festival of 3E 388 when they last saw each other.

I agree that idea is possible; but if true, then I'm confused about her next statement. "I fear that is where the evil took form." I understand the phrase "took form" to mean the action of a plan took place. (as opposed to a time where a plan was formed.) If this is the Mid Year's Festival of 3E 388, prior to the game introduction of "492 after..." I don't understand what evil took form at this time.

a) If it is about the kidnapping of the King, then it contradicts the timeline.

b) If it is the time of her death, then we have her dying (or being captured) before the kidnapping because she discovered the plan, but this seems contrary of the order of events in the game intro where Tharn takes the throne and then the next slide he captures Ria.

c) If it is a reference to when Tharn makes his plan, then I find that an odd response to Talin's question. "Ria! What in the name of the Lady has happened?" I feel that mentioning her death or the Kings kidnapping might be a more important response.

I'm still open to it. How would you reconcile Ria's next statement?

I don't currently have any thing for or against 1.06 vs 1.07.
A CD version was released the same time as the floppy version and the Deluxe Edition CD-ROM was also released in '94. Do you have a reference that v 1.07 is tied to the Anthology release? The 1.06 update was released around August '94 (date on the readme.txt) and I always assumed 1.07 was the release of the Deluxe CD-ROM edition later that same year.
I also noticed that the "1st of Hearthfire" is listed as the time period on the UESP main page for the game. The reason I mention that is to say that there should probably be compelling evidence if we were to support the "1st of Morning Star" from 1.06 over ver 1.07.

My interpretation of "I fear that is where the evil took form" is that she thinks Jagar Tharn began to form his evil plan at that place and time.

If instead it means that she thinks that's where and when Jagar Tharn actually carried out his evil plan, then to me it makes little sense, because if that were the case then wouldn't Ria Silmane and Talin both already know that that's where and when it all went down? To me, "I fear" implies some degree of uncertainty, rather than complete certainty.

As for the versions, it's entirely possible, perhaps even highly likely, that I don't know what I'm talking about, so let me look into it a bit before responding further.

It looks like a CD-ROM version was available at the same time as the floppy-disk version-- which I think you already knew, although I guess I didn't-- but I don't know if the CD-ROM version back then was 1.06 or 1.07. As far as I can tell, the patch for updating the game to version 1.06 was the last patch that Bethesda ever posted on their site, even though the game was available for purchase on CD-ROM at that time, so without any specific evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to think that the CD-ROM version back then was 1.06 just as the floppy-disk version was.

For some reason, I was under the impression that the extra bits-- the voice acting, the cut scenes, and the opening 3D animation-- were added for the version that was included in The Elder Scrolls Anthology, but I'm not sure where I got that impression from.

I'll be interested to know. I had my assumptions but when you gave me a different perspective, I realized I didn't know. I haven't been able to find out for sure about the actual release of 1.07 or when the extra bits were added.

START DATE:
I think I may be coming around. Because it seemed to me that a correction had been made to change the start date, this helped me with two things. It answered why we see different dates and it also made it easy to fit with the later lore books that generically say; “3E 389 Tharn betrays the Emperor”. I haven’t completely given up on my theory, but there’s always….more information.

According to notes on Calendars in both UESP and the Imperial Library, the game can give you either start date. Sometimes “Morning Star” and sometimes “Hearthfire”. I want to verify that for myself, but that would mean I couldn’t easily call it a correction.

As stated in an earlier comment, your work on the Kings 43rd birthday being 3E 388, stands true and I can find nothing, including future lore, that contradicts this. (And this completes the explanation for 492.) The question left is simply regarding the exact timing for Tharn’s take-over and that appears to have wiggle room.

If the 1st of Morning Star is the correct start date, then Tharn Kidnaps the Emperor sometime between his 43rd birthday and the end of the year 3E 388 and the future lore books which are written decades or even centuries after the fact are written in broad strokes. "Approximately" 3E 389.

If the 1st of Hearthfire is the correct start date, then It could be either. The same time-frame as listed above with the same lore explanation - or - as late as Mid Year 3E 389 or later as long as it is before Hearthfire.

I was looking somewhere earlier this afternoon, and I read something that leads me to believe that version 1.07 is the CD-ROM "Deluxe" version-- or else that it's simply the CD-ROM version, and the Deluxe version was a subsequent reissue of the CD-ROM version with the inclusion of the Codex Scientia and a mouse pad. In any case, it wasn't created for The Elder Scrolls Anthology, because it definitely predates the Anthology.

As for the information about the game giving you one of two different start dates, I wonder if that's the case regardless of which version you're playing, 1.06 or 1.07, or if it's the case that 1.06 always gives you one start date and 1.07 always gives you the other start date? I have a few alternate characters archived, so I'll check them to see if I can tell what the start date was for each of them.

I haven't checked all of my archived characters, but I can tell from two different characters whose most recent saves were while they were still in the Imperial Dungeons that they had different start dates-- one started in the month of Morning Star, and the other started in the month of Hearthfire.

I think it's weird that the developers chose to do that, because it muddies the water about when things happened, but that's what they did.

So I guess we have two alternate timelines in the lore just based on when the events at the beginning of Arena occurred, and then added to that we have a Dragon Break at the end of Daggerfall, discrepancies in the number of years per era, differences in how many days each month contains, and even a month or two that mysteriously went missing from the calendar.

Thank you for your last comment. I needed a laugh. I was recently debating an individual and I was defending that there "are" some things we can say we "know". But yes, I agree with you. It's a whole lot easier to list all the things we don't or can't know.

I own the anthology, but the version I'm playing, I downloaded because it was preconfigured for my Mac. So I hauled out my PC laptop and....(arrrggg - small rant - I actually started missing the days of DOS. My Win10 computer decided that even though I'm the ONLY user on the computer I couldn't change a Batch file because I didn't have permission and needed to see the Administrator. "!!! I AM THE ADMINISTRATOR!!!").
The first thing I noticed - "no voices". I later read that the Anthology version is the same as the 1.06 floppy version released for the anniversary. (no voices on my Anthology copy and the voice files on my Mac version being dated 1994 - is enough to convince me the voices were an early addition.) The second thing I noticed - the moving "cut-scenes" didn't occur. And the Third thing I noticed - ...Start date "Hearthfire". The IC IL page says "mostly Mid Year, and sometimes Hearthfire. I need to go buy a lottery ticket. (EDIT: IC vs IL: I always try to call it the Imperial College instead of Library)
I'm certain the Deluxe version was the last commercial release of the time and it seems that most websites associate this both with 1.07 and the addition of the voices, but I don't own a copy. I would like to know where we get "1.07" from. I said I was playing 1.07 because it has the voices and that's what I was told, but I can't find a way to show a version number. Do you know how to tell what version you are playing?

1.06 vs 1.07 differences (collected from the Fandom wiki and the PCGaming wiki)
1. Voice acting for Ria Silmane, Jagar Tharn, and Emperor Uriel Septim VII (confirmed by me)
2. Fandom site says a removal of General Warhaft from the ending (but not the intro). I watched a speed run video and when he rescued the Emperor you also see an image of Warhaft standing with him. I wonder if that's different with the other version.
3. Remastered 3D ending. I assume this is what changes Warhaft's cameo.
4. Removal of the copy protection questions at the shift gate. (confirmed)
5. PCGaming site mentions small graphical changes to items like shields (??)
6. Fandom site mentions that a glitch was introduced where the parchment objective in one of the dungeons would respawn, allowing you to collect all of them from the same dungeon.

The following page tells you how to verify whether you have 1.06 or 1.07:

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Arena:Unofficial_FAQ





I don't see the version when I exit the game, but that might be because I've got the batch file set to automatically close the DOSBox window.

It's likely that the directory was protected by the operating system. A lot of programs install themselves to a folder or subfolder that's protected, so in order to add, change, or delete a file in that folder you need to have Administrator approval. There are generally three ways to deal with that: (1) change the permissions on the folder, which can be asking for trouble; (2) use the "Run as Administrator" option to run the editor with sufficient clearance; or (3) install the program to a folder that isn't so stringently protected.

I followed the third approach when I installed Arena, by creating a new folder called "dosgames" inside my local Dropbox directory-- as opposed to putting it inside the super-protected "Program Files" folder that so many installers love to install programs to. Then I installed Arena inside a "dosgames\Arena" folder. Since it's inside my Dropbox directory, it gets automatically backed up to my free Dropbox cloud storage, and by installing Dropbox on both my Windows desktop computer and my Windows laptop I can jump back and forth between them, continuing my current game while I'm away from home, then continuing it when I get home again, without any muss or fuss.

Thanks
The Version 1.05 patch notes indicated they added the version # after exiting the game (as you mentioned). This is why I was trying to modify the config files; because (like you) dropping to DOS just closed it completely. Win10 tries to put any 32-bit game in "Program Files (x86)" but I'm unable to give myself permissions to this folder. Yeah, it's definitely a "system" protected folder. I don't know if this is one of "those" issues, but I started getting frustrated with Microsoft when they started restricting system access in the HOME version compared to the PRO version. Especially in terms of permissions. (Not a Mac vs PC comment. I like and use them both.) Going into Safe Mode it allows me to change the batch file, but still doesn't allow me to edit permissions. This means I have to jump back and forth between Standard and Safe Mode in order to make and test changes.

Definitely going to take your advice to move it out of that folder. Thanks again.

- Hey I used the information we collected here to add to the NOTES section of the Main Quest page for UESP Arena. Check it out and let me know if you have any feedback.
The reason I went down that road was because 492 was given the [sic] comment and down at the bottom in the NOTES section it says you can correct "these" mistakes by installing "these" mod files. The "fix" changes it from 492 to 389. Technically, after what we have determined, that means the "fix" doesn't match the lore either. It should have been 388, but I felt adding that seemed more like an argument rather than adding information.

Sorry to dig up an old topic, but Im playing Elder Scrolls Arena, and I was also wondering why on every wiki about TES series, it is written that Uriel Septim VII is born on 3E346 instead of 3E345. If Tiber Septim took control of Tamriel in 2E896, 492 years later we are in 3E388 when Uriel Septim VII is celebrating his 43's birthday, so 388-43 = 345, not 346 right? Can you explain to me?

2E 896 -- Tiber Septim proclaims himself Emperor
2E 896 + 492 = 2E 1388 = 3E 388
3E 388 - 43 = 3E 345

Uriel Septim was therefore born on the 30th of Frostfall in 3E 345. The actual day and month might not have been the 30th of Frostfall, but that's the day which is celebrated as his birthday.

However, the game begins some months after the Emperor's 43rd birthday, on the 1st of Hearthfire in 3E 389. Most likely the other sites simply subtracted 43 from 3E 389 to get 3E 346, rather than subtracting 43 from 3E 388 as they should have.

So you're telling me that all Wikis about Elder Scrolls are actually wrong and give a bad birth date about Uriel Septim VII ?
Maybe the other games changed his year of birth in some books, telling that he is born in 3E346 instead of 3E345 and that's why it's written in all the wikis. But in any cases, that's not his birth date as depicted in Arena.

I don't even know what all the other wikis are, let alone what they say. You said they all give 3E 346 as Uriel Septim's year of birth, and you pointed out that doing the math yourself gives his year of birth as 3E 345. All I did was verify your math and suggest a possible explanation as to how someone might come up with 3E 346 rather than 3E 345.

Wikis are written by individuals, individuals can be mistaken, and I suspect that some wikis may simply copy information from other wikis, or at least use other wikis for reference. Hence a booboo on one wiki can find its way onto other wikis.