Humans have never seen their allies?
Of course nowhere does it say that Earth's allies in the Romulans War were the same races that joined Earth in forming the Federation.
Andor, Vulcan and Tellar may have sat the war out.
Last edited:
2166 According to Spock
- Thread starter Saquist
- Start date
Of course nowhere does it say that Earth's allies in the Romulans War were the same races that joined Earth in forming the Federation.
Andor, Vulcan and Tellar may have sat the war out.
^Which is exactly what Michael A. Martin is trying to set up in the ENT book "The Romulan War: Beneath The Raptor's Wing." The allies are sitting out the war and the Romulans are vaporizing all remaining bodies. Sure the book isn't perfect but it seems like Martin is trying to keep some sense of consistency.
There's nothing in TOS to suggest this - that is a later ENT addition
Granted I'm no Nucelar
scientist but can't the terms be used interchangeably?Actually, I have to disagree with everything said here. Including the thread title!
- Spock never claimed the war was exactly one hundred years in the past. We might even argue that his vague "a century ago" refers to the signing of the peace treaty, which might have happened several decades after the fighting ended. So Spock's war might have taken place in the 2120s for all we know.
- They had "primitive atomics", which may well mean that Kirk has "advanced atomics", not that Kirk doesn't have atomics.
- "No quarter" does not refer to the lack of quarters. It's an alternate expression for "no mercy". It would be erroneous to think that Spock is speaking of accommodation standards here - the grammar doesn't support that interpretation. It would have to be "no quarters", plural, if Spock wanted to imply the crews slept in hammocks above the atomic torpedoes.
- Lack of visual communications is unlikely to refer to lack of ability to communicate visually.
I also disagree with all the OP's conclusions and speculations that follow. Apart from that, no complaints.
To nitpick, "atomic weapons" and "nuclear weapons" are the exact same thing. Both can refer to, and have referred to, fission explosion devices, fusion explosion devices, or both. It's just that "nuclear weapons" is the expression preferred in the 1960s through 2000s, whereas previously it was "atomic weapons", and currently it's fashionable to bunch up the nukes and the chemical explosives and the sabot rounds and the swords under the umbrella term "kinetic weapons".
If we want to interpret Spock as speaking early 21st century real-world jargon here, then we must insist that "primitive atomic weapons" would be chemical weapons. After all, "atomics" today refers to phenomena happening within molecules, between atoms, but not within atoms - things happening within atoms are "nuclear".
But it doesn't make much sense to think that Spock would be speaking 21st century jargon, any more than it would make sense for him to speak 1960s jargon. The only logical lingo for him to use is mid-23rd century jargon - or, if we stretch it a bit, mid-22nd century jargon chosen for the historical context.
Timo Saloniemi
Saquist
Commodore
Actually, I have to disagree with everything said here. Including the thread title!
- Spock never claimed the war was exactly one hundred years in the past. We might even argue that his vague "a century ago" refers to the signing of the peace treaty, which might have happened several decades after the fighting ended. So Spock's war might have taken place in the 2120s for all we know.
- They had "primitive atomics", which may well mean that Kirk has "advanced atomics", not that Kirk doesn't have atomics.
- "No quarter" does not refer to the lack of quarters. It's an alternate expression for "no mercy". It would be erroneous to think that Spock is speaking of accommodation standards here - the grammar doesn't support that interpretation. It would have to be "no quarters", plural, if Spock wanted to imply the crews slept in hammocks above the atomic torpedoes.
- Lack of visual communications is unlikely to refer to lack of ability to communicate visually.
I also disagree with all the OP's conclusions and speculations that follow. Apart from that, no complaints.
This is not the point of the thread. I'm glad that it took the 2nd page before I had to out line that.
I appreciate your...opinion on the matter Timo and your tendency to incorporate certain subjectivity but the analysis is most accurate.
I used canon context and reference.
-Spock said it was a century. I can't justify anymore or less.
-I've also seem the speculation on the use of the word atomics. It's a word that can mean many things from antimatter to nuclear. However, Timo, in the 60's atomics meant (Nuclear Weapons). When in time phrases are used are more important than the present day meaning.
-We've all looked at the definition for quarter. Many assume that it is to show mercy. I will refer to basic English and Grammar to establish Context Clues.
**Spock's statement is one sentence.
1. The subject of the sentence is "conflict"
2. The predicate of the sentence "was fought"
3. The predicate is thus modified immediately: primitive
4. The following nouns are atomics and space vessels
5. The thought is furthered by which (means those mentioned)
Allowed.
No quarter
No captives.
According to the definition of quarter which is (transitive) To provide housing for military personnel or other equipment. Quarter the horses in the third stable.
The sentence thus reads.
Attempt One
The conflict was fought with primitive atomics and space vessels which allowed no housing, no prisoners...
according to the definition of which,
No quarter and no captives is refering to that which was mentioned immediately before...(Space vessels)
Attempt Two
The conflict was fought with primitive atomics and space vessels which allowed no mercy, no prisoners...
The error is revealed by "mercy".
Space vessels may take prisoners but they do not show mercy. Mercy is an emotional action and it requires a human. The sentence make absolutely no reference to a person or government, not even combatants.
To posit that Spock means "the ship allowed no mercy and prisoners" would be grammatically odd even for the 60's and also would require the Character of Spock at this moment to literally PERSONIFY inanimate objects, which we know would be out of character.
---------------------------------
These are my reasonings.
But the point of the thread really isn't for debate but feel free. It's to imagine what the conflict would be like based on his statements. If you want to force shove ENT or anything else into your imaginings then feel free.
This is primarily a creative excerise to reveal what other peoples perception of the war would have been.
Special Note:
At the time this script was written, Isaac Asimov and the Twilight Zone had already depicted space travel in the future to be difficult endeavors requiring precise calculations of mass and fuel to get to their destination. The twilight zone in particular featured a stow-a-way which apparently had to be ejected as fuel consumption did not allow for additional mass.
Both came before Star Trek.
Not to nitpick,
but the word "quarter" is the verb, such as in your example definition above. "Housing" (in the context of accomodation, a noun) would normally be referred to as quarters, assuming that that is what Spock meant.Before carrying on, in fairness I've included the definition of "quarter" with respect to the "mercy" meaning:
mercy or indulgence, esp. as shown in sparing the life and accepting the surrender of a vanquished enemy: to give quarter; to ask for quarter.
I think the reference to persons or combatants is implied, rather than overtly stated. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened either in a TV show or real life. Assuming that this is what Spock meant, he should have said:
"...which allowed for no quarter, no prisoners"
There's also Kirk's action at the end of the episode - he offers mercy to the enemy. Assuming the "mercy" interpretation of Spock's earlier statement, this would mirror nicely and contrast "modern" war with the war of a century ago.
In fact, Kirk's weapons do allow for clemency, since they have control over the yield (kill/stun etc). The impression I got from the discussion of the "atomic weapons" is that they were much more an "all or nothing" approach.
No argument there! I think the Spock line could be read either way, since both require a correction in grammer. Maybe both are correct?
With regard to sticking ENT into this picture, I think it would be hard to do. I've always seen ENT as a timeline which was created after the interference of ST8:FC, in any case.
Garm Bel Iblis
Commodore
I'll go with Spock's take on events, and if I were you I'd avoid the abortion of a novel called "Beneath the Raptor's Wings," or as I like to call it Star Trek:Retcon and Cameos.
To me, a lot of this description fits battle depictions seen in Battlestar Galactica... especially the no visual communication and atomic/nuclear weapons and other limitations. It made for fine dramatic action, and a bit more like WWII in the pacific theatre or even Master and Commander type battles among heavy ships.
As far as never seeing a Romulan, I always thought it was in the interest of the Rommies to hide themselves the best they could as it would be a tactical advantage to perhaps infiltrate Vulcan society and therefore the Federation itself, for espionage and/or sabotage. It was more likely, in my opinion, for the Romulans to be fully aware of their shared heritage with Vulcans, while easy for the Vulcans of possibly never knowing the Romulans were former Vulcans thousands of years after their exodus/banishment, and never knowing what became of their lost ancestors since, unaware that an Empire was forming many light years away.
Saquist
Commodore
Not to nitpick,
Don't worry. I encourage nitpicking.
From my understanding of English there must be Subject VERB agreement.
According to those rules:
To identify the Predicate verb it much act upon the Subject
ex.
Jane ran
Bob laughed
Joe jumped
Kat dodged.
Quarter is transitive so it must have a direct object in order to be grammatically correct. That direct object is (space vessels) But that object is not the subject, (at least not from what I know of sentence structure)
In this case the Subject has to be The Conflict because of the presence of the VERB to BE WAS which follows the noun.
But you do bring up an important problem.
Under this definition. Quarter would be a noun and I know of no precedent for such a use.
I considered "implication" But the subject has no such implication. The implication has to actually exist not merely to be speculated upon.
Wars are fought by people but they can also be fought by machines...
Further...if the implication is real and used in context with the rest of the sentence we'd have to assume a person is primitive and that does not appear to be the point of the sentence...(examining primitive people) rather...primitive ships. What do you think?
The point of yours that I highlighted revealed the most error and an assumption on my part. I now have to logically consider that this was a grammatically poor structure for this sentence or a poor or archaic choice of words.
I have aswell.
I would like to resolve this word issue. I'm going to continue research on quarter as a noun.
Exactly what I had in mind - thanks for pinning it down.
What was that episode where Galactica and Pegasus went after some basestars? That had some fine shots of the battlestars piling nuke after nuke into their targets!
Your ENT views are reassuring
although to be honest, trying to fit into a pre-existing story is the curse of any prequels! In fact the only really good one is eps 1-3 in "Star Warped"Grammatically incorrect as it may be, I still think the "which" refers back to the "conflict" part of the sentence. Hence: "The conflict...allowed no quarter, no prisoners". Conflicts are between people, who can offer quarter.
In addition, I still feel that the drama of the story (outlined in my previous post) still has a lot to offer in terms of author intent.
I look forward to that. From what I can work out, to be correct (in your "Attempt One" anyway) Spock would have had to say quartering which just seems odd! Hopefully your research can settle the issue.
Last edited:
Take those away and it could still be intense action with lingering suspense among heavy ships. Like any good submarine combat movie, and there's been many, there's still a lot of dramatic action to be had. It would be like "Das Boot" in space... sign me up!!
Not really, it'd just be one of the ships firing a nuke while both vessels are relatively immobile. Then it'd be laughable when we see the crew of the fired-upon vessel scrambling to try and evade the nuke but then when we cut back out both ships are barely moving while the rocket is slowly inching towards the target like it's just a barely-altered freeze frame.
I don't think Submarine combat is that interesting either.
I don't think Submarine combat is that interesting either.
What if the space nukes were equipped with warp drive just like those "immobile" Starfleet ships, the same ships that had impulse drive too. They had those things during the Romulan war, no matter which 2166 timeline you'd be working with, no one had to get out paddles and row...
Anyway, yeah, it be boring if YOU wrote it.
Sucks to be you.
If I may perhaps offer an alternate suggestion?
The term 'primitive' in this context could easily apply to both 'atomics' and 'space vessels'. In this case the meaning would not be that the ship itself was possessive of mercy. Rather it would mean that those operating the weapons and ships did not have the means to be merciful if they so chose.
"The conflict was fought with primitive equipment that allowed no mercy, no prisoners".
We've often seen Trek weapons being used in non lethal ways. Phaser stun being the obvious example, but also attempts to disable a target ships weapons or engines. It seems to me that Spock's comment just means that non lethal options were not available with the technology at the time.
I also believe that we take Spock too literally that the primitive atomic weapons to which he refers are the same thing as current-day nuclear weapons, such as the hydrogen bomb. They could be primitive or inefficient compared to the weapons used during TOS. There is the theoretical antimatter catalyzed nuclear fission/fussion bomb. The photonic torpedoes used in Enterprise could be primitive compared to the photon torpedoes used in Star Trek TOS.
Last edited:
But he said "Atomic" and not "nuclear", meaning the tech would have to be equal to what existed in the 1960s but not what we have TODAY.
And given how unmaneuverable the TOS Enterprise was, the kind of ships Spock was speaking about would have to be even MORE unmaneuverable than that. To be true to what Spock said = crap on screen.
And given how unmaneuverable the TOS Enterprise was, the kind of ships Spock was speaking about would have to be even MORE unmaneuverable than that. To be true to what Spock said = crap on screen.
Atomic and Nuclear are the same thing, a general name given to any weapon in which the explosion results from the energy released by a reaction involving atomic nuclei, either by fission—of uranium or plutonium; or, fusion—of a heavier nucleus with two lighter hydrogen ones. Thus, the A-for atomic bomb, and the H, for hydrogen bomb are both nuclear weapons. And they had rocket propelled long range nukes in 1960... BUT in Star Trek, even in the Trek of the 60's, they had made up tech too, like warp drive and impulse (that's why they were in space in the first place) that would have also applied to the fictional early Trek history of the Romulan War. But primitive in comparison to the Trek tech depicted in TOS.
Similar threads
