MU timeline according to Shatner
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
On the other hand, I always felt that could be interpreted to mean that the Terran Empire had rewritten its history and literature to make it seem like things had always been that way.
Although, ironically, "In a Mirror, Darkly" has Phlox state that Shakespeare's works are essentially identical in both universes, even though the rest of literature is different.
That is what I meant...2328 would have been the Alliance Occupation of Earth and perhaps the final defeat of the Imperial Starfleet Forces.
Well, there's already a different flag being planted on the Moon by Apollo XI analogues.
And then there's Pocket Books' own "The Klingon Hamlet", which mentions the theory that our Shakespeare was once kidnapped by Klingons, matching up to an extended time in his career when Shakespeare supposedly vanished. Maybe he was kidnapped by Mirror Universe Klingons?
Personally I've always thought that the Terran Empire was just an interstellar Imperium extended out from the old Roman Empire, obviously there isn't any cannon to support that theory but it kind of makes sense from a military conquest stand point. There seems to be a lot of Roman influence in the Imperial Starfleet, just how they saluted each other in "Mirror, Mirror" I wouldn't be suprised if that had some kind of influence historically wise.
That salute had been in widespread use, including in the United States, until formally adopted by the Italian fascists and then the Nazis, so you can't suppose historical continuity from the Roman Empire on that basis (although you could say that it represents the Terran Empire's desire to link itself thematically to the old Roman Empire, much as the fascists wanted to do). My real problem with this scenario is that I can't imagine a world where the Roman Empire never fell would be at the same level of technological development by the 20th century as one where Europe spent the better part of a millenium broadly stagnant. If we postule a point of divergeance for the Mirror Universe, I'm more comfortable with a more recent date. Personally, my prefered post-IaMD theory of divergeance would be WWII - the Allies still won because the ethnic makeup of humanity is essentially the same, but became like their foes during the course of the war. Either that, or, as I've suggested in the past, placing the point of divergeance with the progenitor Ur-Species that seeded the primordial soup of developing planets with their own genome... although that's less tenable after IaMD, given that most other species seemed like their RU selves (but subjugated), with humanity being the major difference.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I always kind of assumed, on the basis of the IAMD credits, that the Terran Empire, or a predecessor state from which it is directly descended, originated during the Great War, actually; there was footage of what I took to be World War I-era soldiers marching with the Imperial seal superimposed on them.
i thought that was Nazi troops...
Well, that was a time when most of the rest of the world was in an age of great cultural dynamism and innovation. Western Europe's "Dark Ages" were an exception to the global pattern, despite what we've been taught in Western-biased history classes. Without the scientific, technological, and cultural breakthroughs made in Asia during that time, the renascent Europe wouldn't have been able to achieve as much as it did. Whenever one part of the world becomes regressive or stagnant, there's still progress being made in another part. For that matter, the Romans were hardly an innovative power; they just borrowed what other cultures had devised. So I don't see it making that much difference either way.
The real problem with this notion is that the concept of any empire lasting over 2000 years without falling is highly implausible. It's the nature of empires that eventually they overreach themselves, grow decadent at the core, and collapse under their own weight. Even if the imperial civilization survives, it does so in a changed form. (In point of fact, the Roman Empire didn't fall when Western history books claim; only the Western half of the Empire did, while the Eastern half ruled from Byzantium/Constantinople continued for another millennium.) The Western Roman Empire was felled by the combination of multiple historical forces; if one trigger event hadn't happened, then something else would've done the job at roughly the same time, within a century or so.
I don't agree. Scientific progress historically coincidences with stable or better yet thriving states, with the possible exception of wealthy states in competition (Renaissance Italy, early 20th century Europe). A large part of why Europe stagnated in the Middle Ages was because of the political instability, empires continuously being stitched together and falling apart, and at the local level feudal lords locked in antagonism regardless of the broader situation--well, that, and the stifling theocracy. A strong, persistant Roman Empire would have provided the stability and theological relativism Europe lacked for the better part of a millenium, and the intellectual progress that typically goes with it. And, as you've said, the Roman Empire was a syncretic entity, so it would have been open to adding developments from abroad to its own native developments, and done so continously instead of in occasional spurts of inclusiveness. Although, one would have to question whether there would have been as much global innovation, since, while China and India were largely outside of the Roman sphere of influence, some of the major centers of medieval learning and cosmopolitanism like moorish Spain and Egypt might still have been under Roman rule and less productive for it. Still, all told, I can't believe an additional thousand years of openess would have failed to advance global knowledge further than it stood the way history actually unfolded (and it's worth keeping in mind that the knowledge imports of the Renaissance were limited, selective, not reflective of the full breadth of foreign learning, and much of that non-European progress was then lost or disregarded in the ensuant era of colonialism).
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
But no empire remains strong for that length of time. Eventually, the centers of power and progress will shift. It's inevitable. If the Roman Empire had endured longer, it would've just become more stagnant and decadent. That's what empires do. What keeps progress alive is the shifting of initiative from the old, stagnant powers to newer, more dynamic powers. It's usually those who are less powerful, who have the most need to strive and compete, who pave the way toward new dynamism and innovation. Industrial Europe made so much progress and gained so much power because it was competing with the complacent power base of China, striving to match or exceed its wealth and power. If Rome had stayed strong, the same thing would've happened in reverse -- some outside power (probably Islam) would've competed with it and eventually outcompeted it, taking the lead in human progress.
So while you're right that a stable, thriving civilization promotes progress, it's just not credible that any single civilization -- especially one as intrinsically self-defeating as an empire -- could carry that torch indefinitely. And it's the passing of the torch from one hand to another, the competition and interaction of diverse cultural viewpoints, that plays a key role in promoting progress beyond what any single civilization could ever achieve.
Again, the fallacy there is assuming that the empire would've stayed the same just because it lasted longer. Inevitably, it would've become more ossified, less open to innovation. Those in power like to preserve the status quo and are threatened by new ideas. The longer an imperial power structure endures, the less open it becomes, and the more essential its downfall is for renewed progress to occur.
Basically, saying "If the Roman Empire had lasted for another two millennia" is like saying "If Shakespeare had lived for another two centuries." Empires age just as people do. Sooner or later, someone else has to take the baton of progress. That's what happened. The Romans inherited the legacy of science and learning from the Greeks, then the Byzantines took it over, then the Muslims did, and then Western Europe took it back again. It's an ethnocentric myth that the fall of Rome somehow prevented progress from occurring.
I don't disagree, but you're denying the premise instead of working through the extrapolation. The question was whether the Terran Empire could be read as an interstellar extension of the Roman Empire, implying a historical continuity of the latter, however unlikely it might be. A persistant, at this point nearly three millenia old Roman state would obviously be different from what we know of that state historically, but working from the premise, it is possible to posit scenarios in which the state both persists and remains 'fresh' enough not to age into irrelevancy. Presumably, this would involve the syncretic addition of 'foreign' cultures and innovations as part of it's gradual, worldwide expansion, and possibly a number of interregnums and intermediate periods like in Ancient Egypt marked by breakdown and reorganization wherein the state would internally renew itself while still maintaining overall continuity (one could say that the civil wars of the 1st century B.C.E. would mark the first such upheaval). Just because power transfers geographically from an older part of a state to an ascendant one doesn't mean the state itself has come to an end.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Yes, that's the question, and my answer is that it couldn't plausibly be read that way because that premise is unviable.
Well, conceivably. Certainly something similar happened in China; although it went through a number of different dynasties that rose and fell, its center of power remained in pretty much the same place, and the culture maintained a striking degree of cultural continuity.
But that's in large part because Chinese dynasties have been limited in their expansionism. They're in a part of the world that provides for all their needs, so they don't need to expand and expand in order to thrive. So they tend to consolidate. Egypt was similar; in the lush Nile Valley, isolated by the desert, it was able to remain very stable for millennia. But European empires are different, because Europe is different. It's smaller, less temperate, less resource-rich, so there's more need to expand in order to survive. And an expanding empire inevitably spreads itself too thin and falls apart. There's just no way the scenario you propose -- the Roman Empire spreading globally while still remaining stable -- could occur. It's a contradiction in terms. Maybe if they'd survived long enough to industrialize, they could've achieved a nearly global empire like Britain did, but I doubt they would've lasted that long. Also, industrialization was driven largely by competition with China; it was something that came from a less powerful state competing with the world's most powerful state. I just think it's a mistake to think of history in terms of only one civilization dominating the globe. That's the way ethnocentric cultures teach history, but it doesn't make sense if you really look at it.
Besides, why bother to link the Terran Empire to Rome? Just because they used that chest salute thing? Where the hell do you get "Roman Empire" from that? And isn't it about a thousand times easier and more plausible to assume they just wanted to emulate a past empire rather than being a direct continuation of it? I'm sorry, I'm not going to bother trying to build a whole theory of history based on a single piece of non-evidence like that.
Last edited:
Tsk, for shame. It's a board dedicated to science-fiction. We oughn't dismiss possibilities just because they're impossible.
Hey, it wasn't my idea. I made those same points earlier on in the thread.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
apologies for the thread necromancy, but i've updated my MU timeline to include "Fearful Symmetry"...
http://startrekspecops.bravehost.com/muchronology.html
spoilers abound for FS, Warpath, the MU TPBs and all MU TV episodes.
http://startrekspecops.bravehost.com/muchronology.html
spoilers abound for FS, Warpath, the MU TPBs and all MU TV episodes.
