Ehhhmm... Calm down people. I have too many critics about bad writing of ENT, but I do not get your points. Your meanings are your meanings, well but they are not facts.
The same f^cking thing is going on in that piece of sh*t show called Discovery. I mean, Jesus, these non-imaginitive writers can't figure out they have a whole canvas to paint all over on, but all they can do is rewrite stuff which were done better and sh*t all over it just to make Michael Burnham and company to look better. What a f^cking waste?
I won't pay any cents for NBC/Paramount while they keep their unrespectful attitude towards fans, so I didn't watch Discovery and you are at the wrong forum, if you want to talk about it. Only similarity between both shows is they are prequels to TOS. Discovery takes place a century after ENT and a decade before TOS. If you want to compare DIS/STD/DISCO (whatever the people call it) compare with TOS, comparing it with ENT makes less sense.
Something to form the UFP or something humans can learn from and not to repeat those mistakes again. The annoying thing about ENT was it's whole intent was to say to the audience everything TOS did on Star Trek, Archer and crew did it first!
A prequel means backstory, what has happened before the original story, so to say origins of the narrative. That is what ENT did, that was the reason why the show existed. How they can tell their story without being first? They didn't /couldn't get the same solutions which we knew from TOS or TNG and it is only logical. The crew or captain were not idealized Federation citizens, UFP didn't exist, they couldn't count on with almighty Starfleet, even they didn't have their Prime Directive. Furthermore, they were much naive and unprepared than they should be. Well, they did too many mistakes, they learned from them and we get the some clarifications about the ST universe. What's your point?
A primitive Starfleet with limited capabilities reacts to the Klingons just like they did in the 24th century. You might imagine discovering the existence of a huge interstellar empire controlled by an aggressive alien species who could easily invade Earth would lead to a massive ship building effort to defend Earth and its interests. Better writing could have shown the Klingon Empire to be a dangerous bullying galactic super power that motivates Starfleet to create alliances (that eventually becomes the Federation) in order to counter this threat. Instead it was over a Romulan drone.
All the societies (Human, Vulcan, Andorian, Klingon, Romulan..) that we saw at the ENT are mostly taking challenges with their own demons. Klingons was not exception and there is no reason to think about they dominate somewhere in the Galaxy. On the contrary, we heard about there was a time that Klingon society was not a warrior society that we know and there are still living witnesses of this time (see Judgement). As we know from world history, a hundred years is a very long time for a civilization. Think about European Countries, archenemies for almost 2000 years in every combination have longest peace era after WWII and consider each other (at least still most of them) as best allies. How many French and German guys believe it for hundred years before? So why should we believe that Klingon, Vulcan, Human societies should be stay frozen? I think, it is one of the brilliant aspects of ENT to show the dynamics of those civilizations.
Earth from TOS universe had a major conflict with the Romulans in the early portions of Kirk's era in the 22nd Century (watch "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and "Space Seed" for proof of his timeline and not those bullsh*t retcon books and the praises of no facts from some members on this forum)Lt. Stiles specifically states he served and knew colleagues who fought in this war, so the conflict was within reach from Kirk's era and wasn't that long ago. What your talking about is a horrible concoction from ignorant producers and writers who conjured something up retroactively. It all depends what you believe in, I believe what was told in Balance of Terror is the truth, for me there's no in fact of anything coming from those f^cking no talented hacks from ENT and DISCO, so I don't give a sh*t what those people try to shove into Trek lore..
If you refer the Balance of Terror you should remember this quotes:
SPOCK: Referring to the map on your screens, you will note beyond the moving position of our vessel, a line of Earth outpost stations. Constructed on asteroids, they monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflict
a century ago
..
STILES: We know Outpost four has been attacked, sir, so if we intercept Romulans now
KIRK:
After a whole century, what will a Romulan ship look like, Mister Stiles? I doubt they'll radio and identify themselves.
STILES: You'll know, sir. They're painted like a giant bird-of-prey.
KIRK: I had no idea that
history was your specialty.
STILES:
Family history.
There was a Captain Stiles was in the space service then. Two Commanders and several junior officers.
All lost in that war, sir.
KIRK: Their war, Mister Stiles. Not yours. Don't forget it.
Do you mean Spock and Kirk are wrong and telling bullshit, but you know better? Is there any other TOS than I quoted here? Please clarify it to me what I could not understand as a naive fan and not native speaker from these lines? I want to know, why do you sure, main conflict is at the time of TOS, show me your quotes, lines, facts. When Stilles talking about his lost colleagues? Please, enlighten me!
And one other thing, writing "f^cking" or "bullsh*t" does not make your language better, please try to keep netiquette.
Thank you!