Dresden Files: Series Timeline

[Priscellie]

Where's Molly's age given in White Night?  Is there a chance that it's an unreliable narrator?

From Chapter 30:

I stripped the glove off my left hand and held it up, my fingers spread. It didn't look as horrific as it used to, but it was plenty ugly enough to make an impression on a nineteen-year-old girl.

Then nine months later, in "It's My Birthday Too":

Molly, my apprentice, was just barely out of her teens, and it was impossible not to notice what great legs she had when she stripped out of her trendily mangled jeans.  She wrinkled her nose as she tossed them into the kitchen trash can.  "Have I told you how much I love the wizard business, Harry?"

[Quantus]

Where's heorot fall?  The following October after It's my Birthday too?

[Priscellie]

Where's heorot fall?  The following October after It's my Birthday too?

Yuppers!

[Stars and Stones]

I guess there's not much point in debate over the subject, since there was no intended time period for it, but I think the Vignette could have happened after DM, too, from this quote of Bob's:

"Okay, fine. Suppose we throw intelligence to the winds and only print the truth. 'Vampire slayer, ghost remover, faerie fighter, werewolf exterminator, police consultant, foe of the footsoldiers of Hell.'"

The "footsoldiers of Hell" phrase might be a reference to the Denarians. Of course, given their usual temperament and dastardly deeds, I suppose the term could be applied to most of Harry's enemies, but it seems to apply most readily to the Bad Penny Brigade.

I was actually thinking that Vignette was BSF because Harry already has his yellow pages ad by then.

[Uilos]

I noticed a typo in Malcolm Dresden's timeline.

Aneurysm is spelled with a "y" not an "i"

[MonaLS]

I noticed a typo in Malcolm Dresden's timeline. Aneurysm is spelled with a "y" not an "i"

Either way seems to be acceptable, my dictionary lists both.

[Quantus]

Question #1:  When was the original Merlin around?  Or if thats a little vague given the lifespan of wizards, when did the whole Arthur and the round table Amoracchius as Excalibur go down? 

Historians as far as I know cant agree and place it anywhere from a few centuries AD in the decline of the Roman Empire all the way up to the 12th century or so during the time of chivalry. 

Question #2:  When where the nails of the Cross first forged into Swords.

I ask because of what Michael said about how Amoracchius had never been reworked like th other two swords, and how it was once in the stewardship of the Original Merlin.  Now if that happened only of few centuries AD, it would make a bit of sense because the sword could have been on its first iteration when the Merlin got a hold of it (and presumably did something to make it last more than the other two).  But if Merlin was on the latter end of things, it would mean that it had already lasted near a millennium before he got it, and might indicate a more philosophical difference between the sword of Love and the swords of Faith and Duty.  Im working on a Fidelacchius theory, but I wont clutter this thread up with it

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Historians as far as I know cant agree and place it anywhere from a few centuries AD in the decline of the Roman Empire all the way up to the 12th century or so during the time of chivalry. 

This is not really a subject for debate among serious historians any more, because there are Arthur stories going back to the early sixth century (Nennius' Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, a fair bit of indirect stuff in Gildas, who was born the year of the Battle of Badon); something held up the Saxons for two generations after the Romans left Britain, but, well, they call it a Dark Age because people are too busy staying alive to document it properly.

But if Merlin was on the latter end of things, it would mean that it had already lasted near a millennium before he got it, and might indicate a more philosophical difference between the sword of Love and the swords of Faith and Duty.  Im working on a Fidelacchius theory, but I wont clutter this thread up with it

All depends on how well the sword was taken care of, and the Knights do seem inclined to take good care of their swords; staying in good shape over a millennium with a sequence of careful owners does not to me scream out some specific magical intervention causing this to happen.

[Quantus]

This is not really a subject for debate among serious historians any more, because there are Arthur stories going back to the early sixth century (Nennius' Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, a fair bit of indirect stuff in Gildas, who was born the year of the Battle of Badon); something held up the Saxons for two generations after the Romans left Britain, but, well, they call it a Dark Age because people are too busy staying alive to document it properly.

Sweet, Thanks.

All depends on how well the sword was taken care of, and the Knights do seem inclined to take good care of their swords; staying in good shape over a millennium with a sequence of careful owners does not to me scream out some specific magical intervention causing this to happen.

But they weren't careful owners;  two thousand years of constant active use will wear and chip even the strongest of blades.  Sharpening alone would take its toll after that long.  And that doesn't explain why Amoracchius is the only one never to have been reworked when the other two have been many times. 

Ill write up my reasoning and post it with the theory on the spoiler boards, so as to not have a tangent here.

[Uilos]

Yes, at the oldest, Amoracchius is roughly 7-8 centuries old at least as long/broadsword's were not developed until the 1300's.

I know this isn't the place for this, but since it's being discussed, is Amoracchius a broadsword or a longsword?

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Yes, at the oldest, Amoracchius is roughly 7-8 centuries old at least as long/broadsword's were not developed until the 1300's.

While this is historically true, Amoracchius being an un-reforged Excalibur strongly suggests it might be an exception in the Dresdenverse.

[zahnadu]

Don't make me hurt you.

*LOL* awwww go on, a timeline for the series would be neat

[Priscellie]

*LOL* awwww go on, a timeline for the series would be neat

I started one, but I got such contradictory info from interviews versus the show itself, plus we have precious little chronological info about when the episodes happen relative to each other.  Of course, if anyone else wants to attempt it, they're welcome to!

[Uilos]

The Boone Identity seems to be the reference point for some of the episodes, as it deals with Murphy's problems and continues them.

they're standalone episodes, with no real arc to connect them

[JustinGD]

Yes, at the oldest, Amoracchius is roughly 7-8 centuries old at least as long/broadsword's were not developed until the 1300's.

I know this isn't the place for this, but since it's being discussed, is Amoracchius a broadsword or a longsword?

I thought I caught it referred to as both and then described as some ungodly length when it was strapped to Micheal's back