No Klingons?

[Timo]

But you're not going to convince me of it

No deep disagreement there, and no pressure!

It is just that every one of your objections just reads "this is not solid proof", rather than "this proves there was no war" or even "with this evidence, war is less likely than no war".

The problem with this theory is that Sulu specifically stated that the last Kzinti war took place 200 years before TAS. That implies that the three previous wars took place even earlier

No need for any single one of the wars to take longer than a few weeks, really. Remember how Larry Niven did it originally? He first postulated four wars, then let others play in his sandbox and postulate a war with four back-to-back attacks (necessarily quite separate, as the Kzinti there were strictly sublight), and then established that this four-parter had been but the first war. In Trek, the four-parter could well be the four wars, all taking place within three or four years. It is a motif of the adventure here that the ratcats just plain don't learn their lessons, after all!

It's possible to argue that 150 years would be rounded to 200, even through the opposite is not plausible, and even though rounding up 149 years to 200 is even less likely (but can happen, if the person first mentally rounds to 150 and then further rounds up). Sulu here would have been rounding as far up as he can - "you were completely defeated 200 years ago already!" would be somewhat weakened if it went "you were completely defeated 172 years ago already!" because the point is to convince the cats that they were defeated long ago.

Thankfully, Sulu doesn't claim that the wars would have been "over 200 years" ago, merely "200 years" ago.

The basic concept of Earth defeating space aliens early on is probably valid enough, as we already have to believe in Earth quickly creating warp-capable deep space ships such as the Valiant. If those were created by warp-uprating preexisting ships, like the canonically unseen Greg Jein model would suggest, then a vast Earth warfleet from WWIII could have been warp-uprated the same way. Or then Earth would triumph with sublight vessels, sort of how the unseaworthy Monitor could fight "real" warships to a standstill at the very least.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Remember how Larry Niven did it originally? He first postulated four wars, then let others play in his sandbox and postulate a war with four back-to-back attacks (necessarily quite separate, as the Kzinti there were strictly sublight), and then established that this four-parter had been but the first war.

I don't recall anywhere in canon Trek where the Kzinti and their backstory were ever referred to again past the TAS episode they were featured in.

It's possible to argue that 150 years would be rounded to 200, even through the opposite is not plausible, and even though rounding up 149 years to 200 is even less likely (but can happen, if the person first mentally rounds to 150 and then further rounds up). Sulu here would have been rounding as far up as he can - "you were completely defeated 200 years ago already!" would be somewhat weakened if it went "you were completely defeated 172 years ago already!" because the point is to convince the cats that they were defeated long ago.

Again, see my above response. As far as I'm concerned, when Sulu said 200 years, he meant 200 years. Trying to use convoluted leaps in logic doesn't change what he said, which is why, yet again, TAS's place in canon is debatable.

The basic concept of Earth defeating space aliens early on is probably valid enough, as we already have to believe in Earth quickly creating warp-capable deep space ships such as the Valiant. If those were created by warp-uprating preexisting ships, like the canonically unseen Greg Jein model would suggest, then a vast Earth warfleet from WWIII could have been warp-uprated the same way. Or then Earth would triumph with sublight vessels, sort of how the unseaworthy Monitor could fight "real" warships to a standstill at the very least.

Why would humans need a space fleet to fight WWIII when the conflict took place on Earth? And as far as the Valiant goes, please give me some evidence that it was a warship and not a ship of exploration as it was described in "WNMHGB."

 

[Timo]

As far as I'm concerned, when Sulu said 200 years, he meant 200 years.

But that's not realistic. Nobody does that in the real life, except in bicentennial speeches.

Why would humans need a space fleet to fight WWIII when the conflict took place on Earth?

That's like asking why humans needed a navy to fight the Seven Years War when the conflict took place on Earth. Or why they needed an air force to fight WWII when the conflict took place on Earth. Why have horses? Why invent swords?

We know that mankind was interplanetary well before WWIII. It would be quite atypical of our species if we didn't possess military space assets to squabble over that new and expanding frontier!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[FalTorPan]

As far as I'm concerned, when Sulu said 200 years, he meant 200 years.

But that's not realistic. Nobody does that in the real life, except in bicentennial speeches.

True! Simlarly I'm 35 years old, but today is not my 35th birthday.

 

[Dukhat]

But that's not realistic. Nobody does that in the real life, except in bicentennial speeches.

And authors of the Star Trek Chronology.

That's like asking why humans needed a navy to fight the Seven Years War when the conflict took place on Earth. Or why they needed an air force to fight WWII when the conflict took place on Earth. Why have horses? Why invent swords?

We know that mankind was interplanetary well before WWIII. It would be quite atypical of our species if we didn't possess military space assets to squabble over that new and expanding frontier!

The only thing we truly know is that mankind had sleeper ships, for the express purpose of space exploration. Not war.

Clearly we're not going to convince each other, so I'm content to let this matter drop.

True! Simlarly I'm 35 years old, but today is not my 35th birthday.

When someone asks you how old you are, and you tell them 35, it's highly unlikely that person will think that your 35th birthday was exactly the day they asked you that question.

 

[FalTorPan]

True! Simlarly I'm 35 years old, but today is not my 35th birthday.

When someone asks you how old you are, and you tell them 35, it's highly unlikely that person will think that your 35th birthday was exactly the day they asked you that question.

Similarly in casual conversation if someone today were to tell me that an event happened 200 years ago, it's highly unlikely that I will think that the event must have happened sometime in 1811.

 

[T'Girl]

Sulu: "The Kzinti fought four wars with humankind and lost all of them. The last one was two hundred years ago ..."

Sulu was speaking to a Kzinti, so his time reference may have been in Kzinti years, not Earth's.

Sulu also says that the four wars were with "Humankind," suggesting the wars occurred prior to the formation of the Federation, over a hundred (Earth) years before the episode.

Captain Chuft: " Always you have had superior equipment.

If the Kzinti of that time were basically in technological parity with Humanity in terms of propulsion, but we were superior in weapon systems because of our history, then it's conceivable that we defeated them in battle, but we lacked the ability in the first three wars to conqueror their civilization.

Spock: "The Treaty of Sirius does not permit them any weapons at all, beyond police vessels. Obviously, the treaty has been broken."

The last of the wars (assuming the treaty wasn't force on them by another opponent) could have resulted in the referred to treaty. Similar to the Japanese nation subsequent to the second world war, Humanity was in a position to force a disarmament upon the Kzinti people. There was no fifth war.

The same organization that fought the Kzinti wars, could be the parent organization of the MACO's, as Archer put it "The Military." The MACO's apparently were a existing unit, and were not specially created for the Xindi expedition. Part of their training was in shipboard combat.

Given the speed advantage of the Enterprise over the previous generation of Earth starships, sending her into Xindi space, instead of Earth's warfleet, would have made tactical sense.

 

[Timo]

Similarly in casual conversation if someone today were to tell me that an event happened 200 years ago, it's highly unlikely that I will think that the event must have happened sometime in 1811.

Not you or me - but quite possibly the authors of the Star Trek Chronology, as already pointed out. However, nobody listens to them, certainly not the writers of ENT, or ST:FC...

Sulu was speaking to a Kzinti, so his time reference may have been in Kzinti years, not Earth's.

Sulu also says that the four wars were with "Humankind," suggesting the wars occurred prior to the formation of the Federation, over a hundred (Earth) years before the episode.

Yup. And the two put together would suggest that 200 Kzinti years is not that different from 200 human years after all - the four wars would have to take place before ENT.

Or, if we treat the Kzinti as the Feline Xindi, then we actually witness the fourth war, which comprises the third season! Earlier attacks by other Xindi factions might have taken place (and would have been quite unsuccessful, as the Xindi don't seem to possess exceptional conventional powers, and only come close to a triumph thanks to their jump drives and Death Stars - both of which might be Sphere Builder technologies not previously available). Without assistance from the Future Guy, our ENT heroes would have no means of connecting them to the Xindi. Sulu would, though, thanks to the benefit of hindsight.

The same organization that fought the Kzinti wars, could be the parent organization of the MACO's, as Archer put it "The Military."

Or it might have been Starfleet, the organization with the naval ranks, the armed starships and whatnot.

Probably it was a combination of the two, though, with Archer's colleagues being the Fleet, i.e. the Navy, and Hayes' colleagues being the Military, i.e. the Army.

Given the speed advantage of the Enterprise over the previous generation of Earth starships, sending her into Xindi space, instead of Earth's warfleet, would have made tactical sense.

...OTOH, if Starfleet decided to send those older warships as a backup, they might have been halfway to the Expanse during the attack in "Zero Hour", and for that reason quite unavailable to defend Earth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

Not you or me - but quite possibly the authors of the Star Trek Chronology, as already pointed out. However, nobody listens to them, certainly not the writers of ENT, or ST:FC...

The authors of the ST Chronology knew full well that their conjectural dates could be contradicted by future productions. Just like a lot of TAS has been, and pretty much all of the Spaceflight Chronology. As far as I'm concerned, TAS was certainly a facet of the total Star Trek scope, but really no different than a novel or a comic book as far as the true canon of ST goes. Same for the Spaceflight Chronology. It's a cool book (I actually own a copy), but trying to justify its contents after countless films and television series have contradicted it seems quite pointless to me.

So in essence, even if Sulu said 200 years but meant something else, it really makes no difference. At the time of TAS, the 2060's were probably envisioned very differently (if at all) than what we eventually got decades later.

Unless of course, any future person who holds the keys to Star Trek canon comes along and re-establishes things yet again.

 

[T'Girl]

Probably it was a combination of the two, though, with Archer's colleagues being the Fleet, i.e. the Navy, and Hayes' colleagues being the Military, i.e. the Army.

What I had in mind was Hayes colleagues would be more the combined Navy and Marines, and Archer and Forest were more the National Geographic Society (with phase cannons).

...OTOH, if Starfleet decided to send those older warships as a backup, they might have been halfway to the Expanse during the attack in "Zero Hour", and for that reason quite unavailable to defend Earth.

Given the speed that the first probe fired, and the reasonable expectation that the next attack would fire just as quick, holding any ships back for "the defence of Earth," really makes little sense. Everything Earth had should have been sent to the expanse, regardless it's speed. The Enterprise could have been destroyed after the first month.

 

[Timo]

What I had in mind was Hayes colleagues would be more the combined Navy and Marines, and Archer and Forest were more the National Geographic Society (with phase cannons).

...And military ranks, and responsibility for conducting Earth foreign policy at least on Vulcan.

Since Archer's Starfleet is the only organization ever to have been established to conduct space battles for Earth, it would be a bit odd to deny that role from it in other, quite proximal timeframes.

Everything Earth had should have been sent to the expanse, regardless it's speed.

Well, perhaps not quite everything, as quite a few of the older assets might have taken several years to get there. Better to wait for the Columbia to be completed, as she'd be there first anyway!

Also, Earth had built those warships for some purpose in the first place. The Xindi threat supposedly wouldn't make that purpose disappear.

As far as I'm concerned, TAS was certainly a facet of the total Star Trek scope, but really no different than a novel or a comic book as far as the true canon of ST goes.

OTOH, the Chronology writers seemed to believe in onscreen Trek taking precedence over written Trek, regardless of the exact type of onscreen appearance.

And nothing exactly contradicts TAS' "view" of the 21st century. There's supposed to have been a war there - and we've seen evidence of a couple already, and no evidence against there being more. We know when Earth first officially met aliens, but when we next see Earth a century later, we see her facing a veritable zoo. Plenty of room there for Kzinti, and Slavers, and Vendorians, and Orion pirates, and even a Devil or three.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Myk]

Probably it was a combination of the two, though, with Archer's colleagues being the Fleet, i.e. the Navy, and Hayes' colleagues being the Military, i.e. the Army.

What I had in mind was Hayes colleagues would be more the combined Navy and Marines, and Archer and Forest were more the National Geographic Society (with phase cannons).

:

Marines are part of the Navy, thats why they're called Marines. The MACOs seem to be more of an Army type organization with strictlly "land" based operations till the Xindi attack. The MACOs association with West Point lends support to the idea that they are part of the Army.

 

[T'Girl]

Marines

Army

The MACO's operate aboard a ship, are used in shipboard combat, deploy from a ship and engage in "boarding actions," they would seem to more fit the description of Marines.

Marines are part of the Navy

While the US Marine Corps have a close working relationship with the Navy, and share a cabinet secretary, the Marines are a separate branch of service.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Marines

Army

The MACO's operate aboard a ship, are used in shipboard combat, deploy from a ship and engage in "boarding actions," they would seem to more fit the description of Marines.

Marines are part of the Navy

While the US Marine Corps have a close working relationship with the Navy, and share a cabinet secretary, the Marines are a separate branch of service.

The MACOS only began shipboard operation after the Xindi attack, prior to that Starfleet handled combat and boarding actions. So unless the MACOS were created after the Xindi attack, they would appear to be Army.

To clarify: The Marines are part of the Department of the Navy.

 

[antiquityscion]

One thing I always wondered during the run of Enterprise was that since this was pre-federation, and Klingons were far ahead of Starfleet regarding technology and battle ships, what stopped the Klingons from conquering Earth all that time, or at least attacking it like the Xindi did.


I liked the Klingon episodes, personally, but if I were in charge, I would have portrayed them a little differently.First, they would have been more like they were in TOS...uniforms, demeanor, and a little more cunning and "sneaky."

Also, I think they should have been more mysterious to the Starfleet...like the Enterprise has a few episodes of a "mysterious ship" shadowing them, and they don't know who it is. Then over the course of a few episodes, a few outposts are raided, and by the time the Enterprise gets there, the Klingons are gone, but the witnesses are either dead, or didn't get a good look at the raiders. In a way, a mirror of Balance of Terror.

Starfleet would remain clueless on the Klingons and Vulcans are tight lipped (wanting to keep starfleet away from provoking the Klingons...fearing the Klingons would want to go to war, one the Starfleet couldn't win), and T'Pol holding back, which frustrates archer. It should have took a while for Archer and the Enterprise to finally get the "reveal" of the Klingons, and hte fact the Vulcans knew more about the Klingons than they told StarFleet.

Then Starfleet would have words with the Vulcans for keeping info about the Klingons to themselves, but the Vulcans reveal they were doing it to protect Earth from the Klingons, and also state they have been doing negotiating behind the scenes with the Klingons on the behalf of Earth for the Klingons to leave Earth alone, or they would have to fight the Vulcan High Command, which the Klingons felt they couldn't defeat both the Vulcans AND Starfleet combined.

To me, this would have at least explained why the Klingons never tried attacking earth.

 

[DarKush]

Would Enterprise have worked if they'd left out the Klingons? I know that they are a staple part of all things Trek, but I have found the Klingons to be a hugely over-used species.

Before Enterprise came out, I'm sure it had been established that first contact with the Klingons hadn't been until 2218 (or some time around then), and I think they should have left that as it was. Instead focus on other established (or new) races that would eventually go on to have a significant role in the universe.

For example, in "Broken Bow", the alien who was shot trying to escape the Suliban could have been an Andorian (they too are a 'warrior' culture), with a large empire of their own and hostilities with various other races closeby. Future Klingon episodes could have been given to other races (another example could be in "Marauders", the bad guys could instead have been Orion pirates).

Just a thought.

I've had similar thoughts myself. I think ENT shouldn't have used the Klingons. It would've made them stand out more. I also think they should've had an all human crew, at least for a while.

My ideas for "Broken Bow" are also similar. Instead of Future Guy and the Suliban, the Orions would be working for the Romulans. And I would've replaced the Klingons with the Andorians. "BB" could've been a great place to introduce Shran as the Andorian being pursued.

 

[Timo]

what stopped the Klingons from conquering Earth all that time, or at least attacking it like the Xindi did.

...Vulcans?

After all, their ships appeared even more advanced, not to mention bigger.

But the idea that the Klingons considered Earth to lie in a generally inconvenient direction would also help. The Delphic Expanse is the one inconvenience that would go away between ENT and TOS, possibly radically altering the Klingon priorities.

Who knows, perhaps the UFP got going not because the Coalition of Planets faced the Romulans in a horrible war that united them for good - but because the CoP faced the Klingons?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Oso Blanco]

It's a bit worse than that: Okuda and pals quote the supposed throwaway line they used, from "Day of the Dove" - but the line never was uttered in that episode, or any other!

Just watched "Day of the Dove" (Thanks, Netflix!), and you're right: The Chronology states that McCoy makes a remark that they've been enemies for 50 years. But McCoy never says this, or anything even remotely like it! Neither does anyone else.

Strange ... I do REMEMBER that line, but it doesn't seem to be on my DVD ...

 

[The Dominion]

Why would the wars have had to have been exactly two hundred years before TAS?

They don't have to be. But as I said before, unless there's blatant evidence to the contrary, if a character says "200 years," I'm going to assume he means 200 years, not 150 years, because if he meant 150 years he would have said 150 years

When someone asks me how old I am, I say 38. I don't say 40 because I feel I need to round it off.

It's like saying the U.S.A. was founded 200 years ago, when it was really 235. People usually are more and more generalizing the bigger the time frame gets. Even more so when it's counting to a big event like a war, that may have had a gradual beginning and a decade or longer run.

The bigger question is, why was Spock rounding? He usually tells time down to the second.

 

[Timo]

True enough. Perhaps he was describing a "fuzzy" event, then? A war that had no definite beginning or end? At some point, the Feds simply got fed up with the constant stupid Romulan plots to take over the universe, and launched an anti-piracy operation of some sort, and that kind of got complicated, and people started talking quagmire, and gradually Starfleet disentangled itself, and one day politicians were proposing a Neutral Zone, and eventually that took, even though the fighting didn't really end there and then yet...

Always the consummate scientist, Spock would thus drop the insignificant digits from his report, even though they would be wholly defensible in describing a more definite sort of war.

Timo Saloniemi