What kind of civilization do the Romulans have?

[Paradon]

Probably something like the Roman Empire, which maintained the outward appearance and trappings of a republic (with a Senate elected from among the people and which was supposed to speak for the people) but was, in actually, an autocracy, run by the Emperor. The Senate was little more than a body to rubber stamp his policies.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a police state, that's clearly what Cardassian society is modeled on. But, there are certainly elements of a police state with the Romulans.

Actually, the Roman civilization started out as a republic and no emperors. It wasn't until Julius Cesar, a sociopath, took control of the republic after a successful campaign in Gaul against the Gaelic tribes, and declared himself dictator for life. Shortly thereafter, he was assassinated and his nephew, Octavian, declared himself the rightful heir and became the first emperor and the republic was changed an empire, which was of course ruled by emperors. That's why the emperors like to referred themselves as Cesar.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Exactly. The Roman Republic was much different from the Roman Empire. All I'm saying is that the Romulans most likely resemble Rome during it's Empire phase.

Though, actually, Rome started as a small kingdom, circa 753 B.C.. Then, in 509 B.C., the last king was deposed by nobles who instituted a republic. Then, after almost 500 years, in 27 B.C., the republic was overthrown by Julius Caesar, his supporters and his great-nephew (the son of Caesar's niece) Octavian. The Empire lasted in Western Europe until A.D. 476, when the last emperor was forced to abdicate. It lasted in Eastern Europe until A.D. 1453, with the Fall of Constantinople.

Okay, now I'll get off my history lesson soap-box.

 

[Jetboogieman]

All I'm saying is that the Romulans most likely resemble Rome during it's Empire phase.

I would disagree for the reason that its never established that the Romulan Empire was constantly attempting to expand violently, and although the Romulans had a rather frosty relationship with the Federation and the Klingons, they're not overtly aggressive towards them.

Its far more likely that the Romulan Empire is more of a fascist police state perhaps closely resembling the Soviet Union in many facets, with the name "Empire" on the top.

 

[Gov Kodos]

All I'm saying is that the Romulans most likely resemble Rome during it's Empire phase.

I would disagree for the reason that its never established that the Romulan Empire was constantly attempting to expand violently, and although the Romulans had a rather frosty relationship with the Federation and the Klingons, they're not overtly aggressive towards them.

Its far more likely that the Romulan Empire is more of a fascist police state perhaps closely resembling the Soviet Union in many facets, with the name "Empire" on the top.

The Balance of Terror certainly indicates their agressive warlike tendencies.
First the Romulans:

CENTURION: We've seen a hundred campaigns together, and still I do not understand you.
COMMANDER: I think you do. No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.

Then later Spock's thoughts based on the idea of Vulcan/Romulan common ancestry

MCCOY: War is never imperative, Mister Spock.
SPOCK: It is for them, Doctor. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive colonising period. Savage, even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show.

In TOS, the Romulans certainly match up to Admiral Shran's description, though they may not as well to TNG's version.

 

[Jetboogieman]

All I'm saying is that the Romulans most likely resemble Rome during it's Empire phase.

I would disagree for the reason that its never established that the Romulan Empire was constantly attempting to expand violently, and although the Romulans had a rather frosty relationship with the Federation and the Klingons, they're not overtly aggressive towards them.

Its far more likely that the Romulan Empire is more of a fascist police state perhaps closely resembling the Soviet Union in many facets, with the name "Empire" on the top.

The Balance of Terror certainly indicates their agressive warlike tendencies.
First the Romulans:

CENTURION: We've seen a hundred campaigns together, and still I do not understand you.
COMMANDER: I think you do. No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.

Then later Spock's thoughts based on the idea of Vulcan/Romulan common ancestry

MCCOY: War is never imperative, Mister Spock.
SPOCK: It is for them, Doctor. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive colonising period. Savage, even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show.

In TOS, the Romulans certainly match up to Admiral Shran's description, though they may not as well to TNG's version.

Sure, thats a valid point...

But civilizations change, and theres just as much evidence to indicate my position in the TNG and DS9 era... I have never disputed that the romulans had an expansionist history, they obviously did by the state of Remas and the fact they are called an empire, and I really should have specified that I was referring to TNG/DS9 era romulan civilization, that portrays Romulus as cautious, isolationist until they see a window of opportunity such as in redemption part 1 and 2 and static as far we're ever told throughout the entirety of both series.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I would disagree for the reason that its never established that the Romulan Empire was constantly attempting to expand violently, and although the Romulans had a rather frosty relationship with the Federation and the Klingons, they're not overtly aggressive towards them.

Its far more likely that the Romulan Empire is more of a fascist police state perhaps closely resembling the Soviet Union in many facets, with the name "Empire" on the top.

The Balance of Terror certainly indicates their agressive warlike tendencies.
First the Romulans:

CENTURION: We've seen a hundred campaigns together, and still I do not understand you.
COMMANDER: I think you do. No need to tell you what happens when we reach home with proof of the Earthmen's weakness. And we will have proof. The Earth commander will follow. He must. When he attacks, we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeland, another war.

Then later Spock's thoughts based on the idea of Vulcan/Romulan common ancestry

MCCOY: War is never imperative, Mister Spock.
SPOCK: It is for them, Doctor. Vulcan, like Earth, had its aggressive colonising period. Savage, even by Earth standards. And if Romulans retain this martial philosophy, then weakness is something we dare not show.

In TOS, the Romulans certainly match up to Admiral Shran's description, though they may not as well to TNG's version.

Sure, thats a valid point...

But civilizations change, and theres just as much evidence to indicate my position in the TNG and DS9 era... I have never disputed that the romulans had an expansionist history, they obviously did by the state of Remas and the fact they are called an empire, and I really should have specified that I was referring to TNG/DS9 era romulan civilization, that portrays Romulus as cautious, isolationist until they see a window of opportunity such as in redemption part 1 and 2 and static as far we're ever told throughout the entirety of both series.

The speculation is fine, but I don't really try to work out the differences between TOS and TNG. The two productions were made so far apart that the differences really can't be reconciled without very stretched and tenuous lines of explanation when the real difference is because the two shows were made so widely apart.

 

[Anwar]

At least TNG/DS9 maintained the sympathetic moral ambiguity of the Romulans when the story focused on them.

 

[Paradon]

IMO if they Romulans are supposed to possess the intelligence far superior to any humans ever dreamed of because of their highly complex brain (as seen with other Vulcan/Romulan humanoids), I'm surprised that they still cling to imperialistic ideal instead of true democracy like we see in Ancient Rome and the America. First you are talking about a space ferring civilization and they are living in the 23rd and 24th century, compare that to Ancient Rome and America at the time they were still using muskets and swords; it just doesn't make any sense. The Romulans can create an artificial singularity, but they can't understand how democracy works or why imperialistic ideal could brought an end to their civilization?

 

[Mr Silver]

I like to think of the Romulans as being a combination of "far right" and "far left" principals. We know that the Romulan government/senate is subject to "ammendments" from time to time, for all we know however those coups could be political and not military in nature. It seems to me that the Romulans consider it dishonourable to kill their own people, from "Balance Of Terror" the fact that a Romulan Commander mourns over the loss of a Centurion in a battle situation shows that the Romulan's aren't necassarily the cold blooded hostile aliens made they are made out to be in TNG and DS9.

The Tal Shiar does have a penchant for being cold, calculating and ruthless, but then again so does any intelligence organisation (Section 31 anybody?). What we know is that the Romulans are extremely xenophobic and whilst this may seem like a negative trait, it could simple be fear that external cultures could destroy the one they've worked very hard to build. After all, the original Romulans who left Vulcan did so because their choices weren't acceptable on Vulcan.

As for my original statement about being a combination of political extremes. The Romulans are an equal rights culture as long as everyone is of the same species. Every Romulan is free to be what they wish as long as it isn't for the enemy and it would seem that the Romulans are happy to accept Starfleet defectors, providing they adopt their culture, fashion and no doubt tell them everything they know (in the case of Ensign Stefan). Unlike the Klingon Empire, it seems that politicians and military personnel are entitled to the same level of respect, although the Romulan senators are happy to let the military do the dirty work for them!

 

[Paradon]

The Romans were all about embracing other cultures and adopting their unique ways of thinking and technologies, adapting and refining them for their own uses; this also is the fundamental believe of America, which it was found upon. The only difference is the Romans used military forces to expand their influence. The idea behind true democracy, at least the ones that the Founding Fathers of America, is to embrace differences in order to preserve liberty and freedom.

And there is a difference between isolationism and not getting involved in the affairs of other nation, making yourself a target for terrorism and attacks by other powers. We can do business with other nations, helping to improve their economy and standard of living for their people and still remain neutral without taking sides. The Romulans doesn't really appreciate what diversities can offer and to me, that is akin to more of a tutolitarian state, headed by a military dictator, or perhaps an empire heads by a monarch.

 

[Anwar]

In other words, nominally they are Space Romans when they are actually the utter opposite?

Xenophobia was the downfall of nations that had the potential to be great empires (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) whereas tolerance is usually what MAKES a great Empire (Ancient Persia, for example).

 

[Paradon]

The Romans were also great law makers...laws that the U.S. still use.

The Nazi were very impressive technologically, but their chain of commands were pathetic compared to the Allies. They were made up of sociopaths, so they didn't trust anyone. Hitler was afraid of giving his generals too much powers fearing they might turned against him. So every decision his generals and high ranking officers made had to be approved by Hitler himself and they have to ask for troops and tanks assuming he granted his generals man and fire powers. The Allies generals were given every available resources they needed once they were on the battlefield and no one questioned them once they were on the battlefield. They were allowed to do their jobs without obstruction from the people above them. It's no surprised the Axis Powers lost WW II.

 

[Sci]

Wow, there's a lot of historical revisionism in this thread.

First off, the Roman Republic was never a democracy. It was, rather, a mixture of democratic, aristocratic, and monarchal elements. In particular, the Senate, dominated by the patricians, was much more of an aristocratic body than a democratic one -- it was the legislative assemblies that actually provided some representation to the land-owning free men who weren't patricians, the plebeians. Those legislative assemblies didn't have power over the patricians, though.

The Roman Republic, in other words, was essentially an aristocracy more so than a democracy. Let's not try to pretend that it was some sort of shining golden age for democracy.

As for the Romulans...

Aside from some of the nomenclature, I don't really see them has having much in common with the Romans. They don't, for instance, seem to have much in the way of duplication of offices, which was a major feature of the Roman Republic. The Romulan head of government, for instance, is called the Praetor rather than the Consul, and there's only one rather than two. (Praetors in the Republic were an elective magistrate.) So they don't seem to have the obsession with balance and duplication that the Romans had. I just don't see them as Romans.

For whatever it's worth, the novels have established the existence of a Romulan hereditary monarchy, with the Emperor or Empress being the subject of an official cult, but with real power usually lying with the Praetor. The Praetor seems to preside over meetings of the Senate, the ruling body possessing both legislative and judicial powers, and the Praetor himself is canonically established to be selected by the Continuing Committee, a body which includes non-Senators like the Chairman of the Tal Shiar. To a point, there can be a struggle for power between the Emperor and Praetor, if the Emperor tries to use the great prestige of his office against the Praetor. The recent novel Rough Beasts of Empire also established that when the Senate was re-constituted following Shinzon's assassination of them in Star Trek: Nemesis, each of the one hundred richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the Romulan Empire appointed one of their own members to serve in the Senate. So there's no democracy, here -- it's definite aristocracy.

There does seem to be some notion that Romulans supposedly have basic rights and liberties in the TNG episode "Face of the Enemy," but that the government often ignores those rights. On that level, I view the Romulans as being more akin to, say, pre-Regency Britons -- a monarch that views for power with a parliament, some rights but they're often ignored, etc. And, of course, the Romulans have a secret police force in the Tal Shiar that seems to be virtually above the law.

 

[Shatnertage]

^ Wow. Reading about a mixed constitution gave me a serious J.G.A. Pocock flashback.

And as far as Romulan civilization goes...I think it passed the Shoulder Pad Event Horizon a few decades back.

 

[Paradon]

Wow, there's a lot of historical revisionism in this thread.

First off, the Roman Republic was never a democracy. It was, rather, a mixture of democratic, aristocratic, and monarchal elements. In particular, the Senate, dominated by the patricians, was much more of an aristocratic body than a democratic one -- it was the legislative assemblies that actually provided some representation to the land-owning free men who weren't patricians, the plebeians. Those legislative assemblies didn't have power over the patricians, though.

The Roman Republic, in other words, was essentially an aristocracy more so than a democracy. Let's not try to pretend that it was some sort of shining golden age for democracy.

As for the Romulans...

Aside from some of the nomenclature, I don't really see them has having much in common with the Romans. They don't, for instance, seem to have much in the way of duplication of offices, which was a major feature of the Roman Republic. The Romulan head of government, for instance, is called the Praetor rather than the Consul, and there's only one rather than two. (Praetors in the Republic were an elective magistrate.) So they don't seem to have the obsession with balance and duplication that the Romans had. I just don't see them as Romans.

For whatever it's worth, the novels have established the existence of a Romulan hereditary monarchy, with the Emperor or Empress being the subject of an official cult, but with real power usually lying with the Praetor. The Praetor seems to preside over meetings of the Senate, the ruling body possessing both legislative and judicial powers, and the Praetor himself is canonically established to be selected by the Continuing Committee, a body which includes non-Senators like the Chairman of the Tal Shiar. To a point, there can be a struggle for power between the Emperor and Praetor, if the Emperor tries to use the great prestige of his office against the Praetor. The recent novel Rough Beasts of Empire also established that when the Senate was re-constituted following Shinzon's assassination of them in Star Trek: Nemesis, each of the one hundred richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the Romulan Empire appointed one of their own members to serve in the Senate. So there's no democracy, here -- it's definite aristocracy.

There does seem to be some notion that Romulans supposedly have basic rights and liberties in the TNG episode "Face of the Enemy," but that the government often ignores those rights. On that level, I view the Romulans as being more akin to, say, pre-Regency Britons -- a monarch that views for power with a parliament, some rights but they're often ignored, etc. And, of course, the Romulans have a secret police force in the Tal Shiar that seems to be virtually above the law.

Never the less, America owes its existence to Rome. A lot of the ideas they got is from Rome and also British. Rome had a lot of influence on Britain and was what catapulted it into the dominant world power and one of the greatest empire the world had ever seen and without England, the United States would have never been created and the idea of democracy would have never been taken seriously. The state Virginia was named after Queen Elizabeth the First because she was a virgin and that was true until the day she died. Virginia is also where American capital, Washington D.C., is. That's no coincidence. Have you ever wondered why all the power nations speak English?

And, although, the circumstances surrounding how America came to be, which was ethically questionable (how the Founding Fathers got rid of British), but they were right in the sense that everybody should be allowed to pursued their own happiness and what they think is the ideal way of life. Liberty and freedom is what make a nation strong. America became a superpower in only 200 hundred years. It took England about 700 hundred years to get where they were.

 

[Sci]

Never the less, America owes its existence to Rome.

Well, insofar as every culture that has evolved in the West since the Fall of Rome, that's true. And it's certainly true that the Roman system was part of the inspiration for the United States Constitution. But it's important not to overstate Rome's influence, either. The role of the Enlightenment and of British constitutional traditions is also important, as is the unique role of American history up to the point of independence.

A lot of the ideas they got is from Rome and also British. Rome had a lot of influence on Britain and was what catapulted it into the dominant world power and one of the greatest empire the world had ever seen and without England, the United States would have never been created and the idea of democracy would have never been taken seriously.

I mean, that's kind of a rambling syllogism. Rome had a lot of influence on a EVERY European empire of the early modern age. It wasn't Rome that allowed Britain to become the most powerful empire in the world -- it was the union between England and Scotland.

The state Virginia was named after Queen Elizabeth the First because she was a virgin and that was true until the day she died.

Or so Her Majesty's propaganda arm would have everyone believe, anyway.

Virginia is also where American capital, Washington D.C., is. That's no coincidence.

I live just outside D.C. I'm well aware of the history of the District. Unfortunately, you're mistaken here. Originally, the City of Washington and the City of Georgetown were separate municipalities within the District of Columbia, which comprised territory donated by both Maryland and Virginia, with Washington located on the Maryland-donated land. Later, the Virginia-donated section was retroceded back to Virginia, and the independent municipalities within the District were abolished and replaced by a single District government. The present-day District of Columbia is located just outside of Virginia, sandwiched between it and Maryland.

As for why the national capital is where it is -- that has nothing to do with English or Roman constitutional arrangements. The national capital was moved to an area near Virginia as part of a back-room deal. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume the states' debts from the Revolutionary War. To secure Congressional support for this plan, he persuaded Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to get their supporters in Congress to vote for his plan in exchange for the Federalists supporting a plan to place the national capital in the South, near Virginia. It was a matter of allowing the South, and Virginia in particular, to try to dominate the Union by putting the capital in their backyard in exchange for increasing the power of the federal government by assuming state debts.

Have you ever wondered why all the power nations speak English?

All one of them?

Brutal imperialism, obviously.

And, although, the circumstances surrounding how America came to be, which was ethically questionable (how the Founding Fathers got rid of British),

Um, no, not ethically questionable. The British were denying them representation in Parliament and were violating the longstanding tradition of salutory neglect in allowing the Colonies to run their own affairs. The Thirteen Colonies had every right to declare independence.

What's ethically questionable is the manner in which they then turned around and engaged in a brutal campaign of mass murder and imperialism in order to conquer the rest of Central North America, not their initial declaration of independence.

Liberty and freedom is what make a nation strong.

If that were true, Great Britain, which brutally denied liberty and freedom to numerous cultures across the globe, would not have been the most powerful empire for two hundred years.

All of which is besides the point -- that Ancient Rome was not a democracy and was not all about freedom.

 

[Mysterion]

Have never liked the romulans being too close a roman-analogue. Too cutesy, too easy, not alien enough.

I prefer Diane Duane's Rihannsu to the on-screen development we've seen post-TOS. she gave them some personality, and interesting culture/society, and gave a good explanation of their history and relationship with the vulcans.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Trek was clearly trying to establish the Romulan Empire as a 23-24th century Roman type Empire.

Ranks like centurian, terms like Romulas and Remus make it unmistakable.

The problem was that all that got lost in the cold war element of the series.

Instead of seeing a powerful ever expanding empire with glory and all that, it was reduced to the 'Federation adversary' they knew little about.

The Dominion was pretty different, but it captured the same concept of a dangerous and large empire like Rome.

I think Romulans and Cardassians are very much alike. I don't think the series separated them enough.

Though, I think the Romulans were even more oppressive than the Cardassians and very conformist too.

 

[Timo]

The Romulan head of government, for instance, is called the Praetor rather than the Consul, and there's only one rather than two.

Umm, not really. There's no point in Star Trek where the Praetor would be considered the head of government. Indeed, the first time a Praetor is mentioned ("Balance of Terror"), he is apparently masterminding a glorious and foolhardily expeditionary military campaign, a favorite pastime for Roman Praetors in their quest for greater political power.

The second time a Praetor plays a major part ("Inter Arma"), it is a character who wishes to ascend to Praetor status but is already a Proconsul, suggesting he has previously been a Consul. A "rotation" through Praetorship would be a logical way for him to vie for renewed Consul status, I guess. Elected head of government (Consul) -> venerable governor of conquered territories or some other subunit of the Empire (Proconsul) -> major player in expanding the Empire further (Praetor) -> re-elected head of government... The circle goes round and round, for any ambitious politician who lives for centuries.

In contrast, the Emperor or Empress never seems to play any role whatsoever, and we don't know if one exists during any of the observed Trek periods. The only onscreen reference is to an historical Empress, one who may even have been erased from history by Q interference!

In-universe, we have to ponder why the Universal Translator insists on turning Romulan words into Roman terminology. Is this because one of the parameters fed into the program is "We like to think Romulans are like old Romans, for no particular reason, so please use appropriate translations, just like we asked you to use pirate terminology and lots of farting noises when dealing with the Xenomite language"? Or because the program independently recognizes the Romulan concepts as having closer counterparts in the Roman Empire than in the British Empire or the Weimar Republic? Remember that the program once independently chose to translate an Ardanan word for "cave-dwelling laborer" into "troglyte", and our heroes only belatedly recognized the inference...

Most alien military organizations have their ranks translated into Royal Navy / USN terminology. The Bajoran Militia for some reason gets a different treatment - arbitrarily, or because of conceptual issues? Translations of Cardassian or Ferengi ranks don't fit into the USN scheme, either - arbitrarily, or because these organizations indeed follow a fundamentally different structure?

If the Praetors of Romulus don't play a role akin to the Praetors of Rome, why doesn't the UT refer to them as, say, "warlords" or "lobbyists" or "governors" or "presidents" or "dictators"? The English language is not short on fairly exact terms for a great range of concepts (mainly because it keeps borrowing synonyms from numerous foreign languages and adopting them as nuanced not-quite-synonyms for describing a range of issues). The choice of Praetor over Minister or Chief Comptroller or First Citizen should be based on some in-universe rationale IMHO.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

The Romulan head of government, for instance, is called the Praetor rather than the Consul, and there's only one rather than two.

Umm, not really. There's no point in Star Trek where the Praetor would be considered the head of government.

From "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges":

12 INT. BELLEROPHON - QUARTERS (OPTICAL)

An N.D. Romulan is calmly standing in the middle of
the room, bathed in a BLUE LIGHT.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Inter Arma... " - REV. 01/08/99 - ACT TWO

18. 12 CONTINUED:

The man DISAPPEARS and is replaced with the IMAGE of NERAL -- leader of the Romulan Empire.

BASHIR'S VOICE
Neral. Formerly Proconsul and
now Praetor of the Romulan Star
Empire.

REVEAL Bashir and Sloan. Bashir is on the couch,
while Sloan sits at a desk with a computer terminal.

BASHIR
Neral's ascension to the top post
was confirmed by the Continuing
Committee a little over a year
ago.

That establishes very clearly, both in script background and in dialogue, that the Romulan Praetor is the head of government.

And if that's not enough, the next time we encounter a Romulan Praetor -- two of them, actually, one after another -- it's Hiren and then Shinzon. Both are very clearly the leaders of the Romulan Star Empire.

Indeed, the first time a Praetor is mentioned ("Balance of Terror"), he is apparently masterminding a glorious and foolhardily expeditionary military campaign, a favorite pastime for Roman Praetors in their quest for greater political power.

Which is something a head of government might do.

The second time a Praetor plays a major part ("Inter Arma"), it is a character who wishes to ascend to Praetor status but is already a Proconsul, suggesting he has previously been a Consul.

No. You are utterly misremembering "Inter Arma," as I demonstrated above. Neral was already Praetor; the issue was that there was an open seat on the Continuing Committee, so the Chairman of the Tal Shiar joined with Section 31 to frame a Senator for treason so he'd get the seat.

In contrast, the Emperor or Empress never seems to play any role whatsoever, and we don't know if one exists during any of the observed Trek periods. The only onscreen reference is to an historical Empress, one who may even have been erased from history by Q interference!

The only canonical reference to Romulan royalty is the reference to a Romulan Empress as one of Q's potential mates in "The Q and the Grey." There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that Q "erased her from history," and the relative dearth of canonical information on the Romulan Emperors is consistent with the mostly ceremonial role postulated for them in the novels.

In-universe, we have to ponder why the Universal Translator insists on turning Romulan words into Roman terminology. Is this because one of the parameters fed into the program is "We like to think Romulans are like old Romans, for no particular reason, so please use appropriate translations, just like we asked you to use pirate terminology and lots of farting noises when dealing with the Xenomite language"?

Why not? There's no particular reason to call the Deutsche the "Germans" other than that the ancient Romans used to name all of the Deutsche lands "Germania." Arbitrary translation traditions are hardly unheard of in history.

And there's no reason to think that that vocabulary is automatically chosen by the UT program. It's entirely possible it was just chosen by early Humans because they thought the name "Romulan" (canonically established to be their phonetic name in ENT's "Minefield") reminded them of Romulus.