In star trek XI, Nero said he is the last of the romulan empire.
Spock said there are only 10000 vulcans left, that the vulcans are an endangered species.
At the end of the movie, it is, again, established that the vulcans are experiencing a crisis due to severely limited numbers - which is not consistent with hundreds of millions of vulcans living in off-world colonies.
And not consistent with the existence of billions of Romulans, Vulcans but for political naming conventions.
Reducing the Vulcan population of Vulcan cultural background from (say) 5 billion down to 50 million--a drop of 99%--would certainly threaten the survival of this culturally distinctive group.
Saying vulcans are romulans is much like saying that cold war russians were americans. With the difference that the cultural gap between these two nations was FAR FAR smaller.
Also - countries generally have a population far below 50 million people. That does NOT mean their survival is biologically endangered in any way, shape or form.
Besides, the people who wrote the movie said that the ten thousand figure relates to the people living on Vulcan itself. What more needs to be said?
[...] As I said, screenwriters tend to overlook the idea of offworld colonization. I suspect that the line was written with the unexamined assumption that Vulcans lived only on Vulcan, and when that fan raised the question to Orci in the Q&A, Orci realized that had been an oversight and offered a correction. So I'd expect that, if the issue came up in a later movie and if there were room to mention it, Orci and Kurtzman would be more likely to clarify that there are surviving Vulcan colonies.
AKA, as I already said "When they wrote the script, the scenarists' intent
was to have the vulcans be an endangered species
(10000 of them) and the 24th century romulans be all but extinct.
Of course, that does not really make sense when one considers the capabilities of an interstellar trek civilization.
Which is why many interpret the movie as "Nero was emotionally compromised and his words are not to be taken at face value" or "Spock was emotionally compromised and his words are not to be taken at face value".
Of course, this hand-waving interpretation
does not really fit the events as presented in star trek XI, is forced - and it shows
Nevertheless, it may be preferable."
Agreed. That's why I wrote that I consider the Rihannsu novels as relevant to the novelverse, canonical except where they can't be.
About the rihannsu novels - it is pretty much the same situation.
The rihannsu novels - most of the events depicted therein - do not fit the main trek lit continuity, they were not intended to fit this main lit continuity
There's numerous references made to the Romulans as Rihannsu in the novelverse. [...] Most of the new novels even explicitly credit the Rihannsu novels in their neat bibliographies.
The current lit continuity borrowed some snippets - names and a few concepts - from the rihannsu books.
It did NOT - at this point, it can't (I already gave relevant examples) - borrow the books' plot and most of the concepts presented therein.
Generalising from borrowing those snippets to ~'everything from the rihannsu books that's not already contradicted is part of the lit continuity' is a poor argument, based on a logical fallacy.
If we're assuming implacable hostility, there's still the question of why Nanclus was president at this briefing.[...]
The romulans being friendly with the federation?
In star trek V, it was obvious nobody cared about the "planet of galactic peace".
In star trek VI, the romulans were a part of the plot to kill the federation president.
This so-called 'friendship' was pretty superficial - more like a frozen war.
Why would the Romulan ambassador be present? Assuming that the Federation isn't run by stupid people, the simplest explanation seems to be that the Romulans are close enough to the Federation to be trusted with highly sensitive information as it's being briefed to the Federation president.
Do you actually doubt I could come with 2-3 different explanations for this (for example, the federation was trying to obtain romulan neutrality, the relevant information given at the meeting being general enough that it was common knowledge)?
Or that you could find counterarguments that I could, again, refute, generating a lenghty discussion that will never go anywhere, being, essentially, a waste of time?
Rihannsu 5 - the book that ends with the romulans and the federation being friends - was written AFTER star trek VI was filmed.
Meaning there is no chance star trek VI was meant to incorporate ideas from the rihannsu 5 (see romulan-federation friendship).
In star trek V and VI, the scenarists imagined half-hearted attempts at rapprochement that are orders of magnitude below what rihannsu 5's friendship would imply.
You are trying to connect the two in a way that was not intended by their creators; the result is, inevitably, a forced interpretation.