Reasons why Archer is never mentioned in history

[WraithDukat]

How often do real life Captains bring up historical captains? I don't really see it as an issue.

I always assumed they got his name from 'Archer IV' in Yesterdays Enterprise. It's one hell of a coincidence if not.

 

[Damian]

Its meant to be a fun, 'take the mick' thread, not a serious inuniverse analysis of what happened.....sigh

Yeah, I know. But I couldn't help thinking of 'real' in universe reasons we may not have heard much about him. I'm afraid my creativity isn't the best so I'll leave the 'fun' reasons to others.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

If you're a captain, you invariably compare your actions to other famous captains in your (Federation/Starfleet) history, and either look up to or down on your predecessors. Similarly, engineers and doctors also recall famous members of their own streams. It's only natural that Archer be looked back to with either awe or disdain.

A captain of a lesser-known ship/crew/mission/era would not be spoken of by so many or have as many credits to their name. They wouldn't be studied as often or as in depth, whether due to relative lack of information on them or lack of notoriety.

 

[thribs]

People say Franklin is prime but I don’t see how. Nothing about that ship fits with the history set there.

 

[Kerock]

There is the Story about the admirals Dog and the Transporter Accident.

I heard it at The Captain's Table

 

[thribs]

There is the Story about the admirals Dog and the Transporter Accident.

I heard it at The Captain's Table

Yeah. I mentioned a while back that he was called Admiral Archer there and not President Archer. Since you normally call someone in the past tense by their highest title it makes me think that Scotty was either referring to a Archer who never became President in their universe or a descendant.

He was mentioned in that Discovery show but since that show feels more like BSG than Star Trek, it came off very jarring.

 

[Tuskin38]

No thank you.

Your loss

People say Franklin is prime but I don’t see how. Nothing about that ship fits with the history set there.

Just because it was never mentioned doesn't mean it never existed.

The design is very reminiscent of ships of the time period (minus the view screen), hell the nacelle have things in common with the NX-01s.

 

[Kerock]

Yeah. I mentioned a while back that he was called Admiral Archer there and not President Archer. Since you normally call someone in the past tense by their highest title it makes me think that Scotty was either referring to a Archer who never became President in their universe or a descendant.

He was mentioned in that Discovery show but since that show feels more like BSG than Star Trek, it came off very jarring.

Well this is Scotty we are talking about............

 

[Nerys Myk]

Archer is mention all the time. If fact some people wish the Federation and Starfleet would shut up about him. All those extras in the background of the rec room scenes? Talking about Archer. People in corridors? Talking about Archer. Fed Council and Klingon High Council? Usually whispering about Archer.

 

[XCV330]

Yeah. I mentioned a while back that he was called Admiral Archer there and not President Archer. Since you normally call someone in the past tense by their highest title it makes me think that Scotty was either referring to a Archer who never became President in their universe or a descendant.

You are not correct.

U.S. Grant remains at least as famous a general than as a president. His obituary and numerous other articles about him later, including numberous monuments describe him as General.
https://i2.wp.com/www.19thcentury-n.../2018/04/Featured-grant.jpg?fit=790,442&ssl=1

When General and President Eisenhower died, similar articles:

https://blog.genealogybank.com/wp-c...wspaper-0328-1969-dwight-eisenhower-death.png

And it is still common to discuss General Washington, especially apt in his case as he did still participate in military engagements as president, the last to do so in the US. He was president, but he's more famous for his military career. For other countries I have no idea.

 

[yenny]

You can't assumed that Admiral Archer and President Archer are the same person. Admiral Archer is most likely President Archer grandson or granddaughter.

 

[XCV330]

You can't assumed that Admiral Archer and President Archer are the same person. Admiral Archer is most likely President Archer grandson or granddaughter.

It was clear as glass. They wanted the audience to make that assumption. ADMIRAL archer. prized BEAGLE. it was a nod to Enterprise. Do they actually have to have scotty say "I transported a beagle that belonged to Admiral Archer.. the same Archer who was captain of the NX-01 and become President. I have a picture of him in my wallet. Let me show you.."

 

[Jinn]

That was definitely the intent, but I don't think that Portos would reach age 100+. I guess Archer could get a new beagle, maybe even Portos' descendants, but I'm not sure if that was the intent of the writers. Then again; who knows?

 

[Nerys Myk]

That was definitely the intent, but I don't think that Portos would reach age 100+. I guess Archer could get a new beagle, maybe even Portos' descendants, but I'm not sure if that was the intent of the writers. Then again; who knows?

Porthos was a Changeling. He just beamed home.

 

[Tenacity]

I mentioned a while back that he was called Admiral Archer there and not President Archer. Since you normally call someone in the past tense by their highest title

Perhaps being a top Starfleet Admiral is considered a more prestigious position than being a mere Federation President.

 

[Christopher]

It was clear as glass. They wanted the audience to make that assumption. ADMIRAL archer. prized BEAGLE. it was a nod to Enterprise.

That logic only works if there's no such thing as children or descendants who inherit their forebears' tastes in pets. A reference to a famous person's descendant is still a nod to that person.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Word of God says it's the same Archer. Word of the Guy Who Wrote Archer's ENT biog agrees.

Thus, same guy.

That was definitely the intent, but I don't think that Portos would reach age 100+. I guess Archer could get a new beagle, maybe even Portos' descendants, but I'm not sure if that was the intent of the writers. Then again; who knows?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Jinn]

Word of God says it's the same Archer. Word of the Guy Who Wrote Archer's ENT biog agrees.

Thus, same guy.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Unless god appeared on screen and said that, no not really.

And STV doesn't count

 

[Christopher]

Word of God says it's the same Archer. Word of the Guy Who Wrote Archer's ENT biog agrees.

Thus, same guy.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I don't care what the intent was, it's stupid and I don't have to accept it. Heck, a large part of my job is finding better explanations for things in Trek that make no sense as presented.

 

[Spot261]

Here are all the references to Kirk in the 24th-century shows:

TNG:
"The Naked Now" (because they encounter the same disease)
"Unification" (mentioned by Spock)
"Relics" (mentioned by Scott)
Nemesis (Riker uses a "Kirk Epsilon" defense pattern)

DS9:
"Crossover" (explaining Mirror Universe backstory)
"The Sword of Kahless" (by Worf in connection to Kor)
"Trials and Tribble-ations" (for obvious reasons)

VGR:
"Flashback" (ditto)
"Concerning Flight" (Janeway says Kirk claimed he met Leonardo da Vinci)
"Q2" (Icheb's report on Kirk)
"Friendship One" (an admiral likens Voyager's first contact record to Kirk's)

So really, with only a couple of exceptions, Kirk is never mentioned except by characters who knew him personally or who are encountering things he also encountered. So it's not like people are going around constantly name-dropping him in casual conversation. He mostly only came up when he was relevant.

So really, the question isn't why people didn't mention Archer as often as Kirk, it's why they didn't encounter people or things connected to Archer as often as they encountered people or things connected to Kirk. And maybe the greater historical distance could account for that where the 24th-century shows are concerned. But of course the real explanation is just that Archer hadn't been created yet.

I'm pretty sure this thread was meant to be fun....