Did Kirk captain any ship before Enterprise?

[CoveTom]

But the thing is -- and I think maybe some posters here are overlooking this -- that "evidence" and "proof" are two very different things. Evidence is simply data that you gather and use to try to arrive at a conclusion. It literally just means "that which is seen" -- it's an observation or result, a data point to be taken into consideration. Proof -- which is more of a vernacular or legal term that you won't really find in scientific usage -- is decisive evidence (or indisputable reasoning, in the mathematical or logical sense), something that leaves no doubt about a certain conclusion.

So calling something "evidence" does not mean it's conclusive or even indisputable. It just means it's data that can be used to evaluate the question. Evidence can support a certain conclusion without being enough to prove it, because of course it usually takes more than a single piece of evidence to arrive at proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find the butler's fingerprints on the murder weapon, that's evidence in the case, and it can be taken as evidence in support of the hypothesis that the butler did it; but if you gather more evidence demonstrating conclusively that the jilted lover has gunshot residue on her hand and left her DNA at the scene and drugged the butler and put the murder weapon in his hand, then you've proved that the jilted lover did it. The fingerprint evidence is still evidence, but when placed in the context of the rest of the evidence, it contributes to a different conclusion than it suggested by itself. So evidence and proof are not the same thing. Evidence is data that's open to interpretation; proof is a pattern of evidence that is only consistent with a single conclusion.

So you're absolutely right that we can't talk about proof in a case like this, but we certainly can talk about evidence. Dehner's line is certainly weak evidence, and in the absence of any further evidence its probative value is too limited to allow any firm conclusion to be drawn. But it is perfectly valid to call it evidence. This is just one of those cases where the available evidence is insufficient to allow a definite conclusion -- something which actually happens pretty often in this world.

But the scant evidence we do have does seem to make one conclusion more probable than the other, and in this case, where there will never be any more evidence to allow a firm conclusion, probability is the best we can ever do. And since it is just imaginary, probability and common sense are good enough for me.

Everything you say is valid. My point, perhaps stated inarticulately, was that many people in this thread are arguing -- and very emotionally so -- as though there is a "right" answer supported by evidence, and that anything else is wrong.

Well, of course, there is no correct answer as to whether or not Kirk commanded a ship prior to the Enterprise, because neither Kirk nor the Enterprise are real.

It's that attitude that I don't understand.

 

[Christopher]

^Nor do I. All along I've been treating this merely as a matter of probability, what's the more reasonable interpretation. I have no idea why anyone would treat it as an argument about "proving" something that's literally impossible to prove.

So let me ask the question this way: Why would it be desirable to believe that Kirk had no prior command? Is it just because of his youth? Riker was offered his first command at 29, and Picard took command of the Stargazer at 28, though he jumped a couple of steps in rank due to the circumstances. Those are both younger than Kirk was when he took over the Enterprise. So I don't think the youth argument cuts it, at least not in a Trek-universe context.

So what does that leave as a reason for preferring the idea that he had no prior command? TOS never portrayed him as a novice or inexperienced commander; rather the opposite, I'd say.

So it's a mystery to me. Of course we're not talking about something provable, just a matter of individual preference -- but what's the appeal of the idea?

 

[C.E. Evans]

^^^
Speaking just for myself, I can't say there's any appeal one way or the other. It's just that far stranger things have happened in Trek.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

1.) Mallory helped Kirk into the academy (The Apple), Kirk entered the academy at 17, father dead (backstory from the Writer's Guide)

For the most part your timeline of Kirk's life is pretty damn good, and I see nothing wrong with any of your assumptions or anything.

except for the fact that Kirk was born in 2233 and would be 16 in 2249. And thats fixable just by subtraction a year from his age in the timeline.

Oops. For some reason I had it in my head that he said he was 35 in The Deadly Years. But he actually states that he's 34. Sorry about that.

 

[Dukhat]

So let me ask the question this way: Why would it be desirable to believe that Kirk had no prior command? Is it just because of his youth? Riker was offered his first command at 29, and Picard took command of the Stargazer at 28, though he jumped a couple of steps in rank due to the circumstances. Those are both younger than Kirk was when he took over the Enterprise. So I don't think the youth argument cuts it, at least not in a Trek-universe context.

So what does that leave as a reason for preferring the idea that he had no prior command? TOS never portrayed him as a novice or inexperienced commander; rather the opposite, I'd say.

So it's a mystery to me. Of course we're not talking about something provable, just a matter of individual preference -- but what's the appeal of the idea?

For the record, I actually think that the oft-mentioned factoid about Kirk commanding a destroyer before the Enterprise is a pretty cool idea. However, my original point was that this is not a canonical fact based on just the show itself (and of course, Dehner's vague line in a pilot episode that was quite different from the actual series), and was an idea from a writer's bible that arguably did not make it into the show.

 

[Christopher]

^Nobody's claimed that it's a fact, so there's no point in even bringing that up. This discussion has nothing to do with fact. It's just a discussion of which interpretation we find more preferable or reasonable.

 

[Dukhat]

^Nobody's claimed that it's a fact, so there's no point in even bringing that up. This discussion has nothing to do with fact. It's just a discussion of which interpretation we find more preferable or reasonable.

Certain posters were claiming that what was written in the writer's bible and the Making of Star Trek should be taken as fact. But you know what? I'm really tired of talking about this now, so I'll bow out of this discussion.

 

[Christopher]

Certain posters were claiming that what was written in the writer's bible and the Making of Star Trek should be taken as fact.

Sorry, but I just reviewed the thread, and I couldn't find a single post where anyone actually said that. Warped9 and Robert Comsol did mention TMoST as an authoritative reference about the creators' intentions, but the word "fact" did not appear in their posts. (Also they did not reference the writers' bible, which has nothing to say on the issue.) Mostly the only people who've used the word "fact" in this thread have been people insisting that it's not a fact. The closest anyone came to calling Kirk's destroyer command a fact was when you referred to it as a "factoid" in your previous post.

Sometimes posters are too quick to respond to what they think they remember other posters saying, rather than taking the time to go back and review what was actually said. We may not be able to arrive at any findings of fact about Kirk's early career, but the facts of what our fellow posters did and didn't say are quite easy to track down with a little care and patience.

 

[Tiberius]

Just to clarify, are we talking about being in command of a ship, or are we talking about being in command of a ship while holding the rank of Captain?

 

[Knight Templar]

Not mentioning Gary Mitchell again seems completely reasonable.

Can you imagine Kirk saying out loud

"Remember that time my best friend murdered two crewman and I collapsed a mountain side on him and crushed him to death?

 

[Warped9]

I know the Enterprise 1701 had captains before Kirk, but did Kirk captain any ship before Enterprise?

The OP's question is open to interpretation. Is he's asking if Kirk had ever held the rank of Captain aboard a prior position or is he asking if Kirk ever held a prior command (mostly likely a ship) before the Enterprise?

I think it unlikely that Kirk was a Captain before being assigned the Enterprise, but the evidence suggests he has had a prior command before the Enterprise. He couholdover held the rank of Commander and still have captained a previous ship.

 

[Utopianvista]

I've always taken that line to mean that Kirk's first command was the Enterprise and thus why Gary was with him.

It's open to interpretation and I don't think there is any on screen evidence to really debate it.

Besides, I just can't see Kirk commanding a ship not called the Enterprise (BOP excluded).

 

[Warped9]

The Writer's Guide and WNMHGB suggest the Enterprise is not Kirk's first time at bat and nothing later on contradicts it. It actually makes more sense that way.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I've always taken that line to mean that Kirk's first command was the Enterprise and thus why Gary was with him.

It's open to interpretation and I don't think there is any on screen evidence to really debate it.

That's it in a nutshell. Kirk's first command could either have been the Enterprise, a previous vessel, or even something else. Take your pick.

 

[Timo]

Especially if there was some kind of "boom" in Starfleet size in Kirk's early career

Perhaps a very concrete kaboom? In "Whom Gods Destroy", Garth of Izar praises Kirk's soldier qualities, and rather than contradict him outright, Kirk just says he's more of an explorer "now". Perhaps Starfleet was at heated war in Kirk's early days (the Four Years War of early RPG fame), and attrition brought the young officer to prominence?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

Taking lines from WNMHGB as irrefutable fact seems a little pointless to me.

Again, where is all this counterfactual rubbish about "conclusive proof" and "irrefutable fact" coming from? Nobody is claiming anything of the sort. We're just discussing possibilities. Any reasonable observer would conclude that it's impossible to prove anything about this. It's a topic within a work of fiction that was never addressed except in one ambiguous line of dialogue. Even attempting to cast the discussion in terms of proof is nonsense. Of course there's nothing to prove because the characters and institutions we're talking about don't actually exist. The best anyone can say about any interpretation is that it sounds more or less plausible than another. It's a completely abstract discussion about what might have been the case in an imaginary story some people made up decades ago, pure speculation about something there's virtually no evidence about and never will be. So can we please just relax and stop taking it so damn seriously?

I wasn't, Mr. Bolding For Emphasis.

It was a pilot episode where Spock wore yellow and had "a human ancestor", where Sulu wore blue, and where Kirk had a BFF that never came up again in canon Trek. It's a great episode, but as with most pilots it's not entirely continuous with the series proper.

I don't see how any of those represent serious continuity problems. Sulu simply changed jobs, and the uniform designs were changed. (Really, as first officer, Spock should have worn command gold; the producers probably just figured he looked better in blue.) And no character important in Kirk's life was brought up outside the episode in which he or she appeared, because that's how '60s television always worked. And Spock may have simply been reticent to admit how much human blood he had. These are no worse than the continuity glitches that showed up within the series itself.

Agreed on the continuity glitches (providing of course you use production order instead of aired order), but Shatner's Kirk lived on until 1994, way beyond the 60's episodic format. Although all I can say about that is how annoyed I was when Kirk's "I lost a brother once" in STV wasn't about Sam. Which doesn't help my case.

 

[Robert Comsol]

"According to the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure, Kirk commanded the USS Lydia Sutherland ... prior to commanding the Enteprise. Although I think Kirk was actually the first officer, and it was his heroic actions here once the captain was incapacitated that led to him being promoted to captain and given the USS Enterprise."

HMS or USS? Just to get this straight: the author was unable to come up with a better name for a Star Trek ship other than merging the names of the HMS Lydia and the HMS Sutherland from the film "Captain Horatio Hornblower" and the novel series?
Sorry, sounds like felgercarb to me.

"According to DC Comics' old continuity, Kirk commanded the Baton Rouge-class USS Saladin for 3 or five years prior to the Enterprise."

Unfortunately I don't have all the comics (wasn't it Marvel?) but think those to nicely fill in gaps unless contradicted by screen evidence.

According to Kirk in "Court-Martial" and the subsequent wishes of the producers USS Republic (NCC-1371) was a member of the "starship class". According to the comics USS Republic was a Baton Rouge Class vessel (of the starship class).

Since USS Saladin was a starship, too, it looks like we have to conclude that Kirk's first command was another ship ("destroyer class") prior to USS Saladin.

Bob

 

[C.E. Evans]

^^^
Actually, we don't have to conclude that at all. But individually, everyone can go with whatever idea they like the best.

 

[Timo]

Only if destroyers aren't starships. Hard to tell, when we never really got a good look at a non-starship in Starfleet service.

Sorry, sounds like felgercarb to me.

That's a cute expression, but the book was actually sort of fun. Didn't take Star Trek too seriously...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Christopher]

According to Kirk in "Court-Martial" and the subsequent wishes of the producers USS Republic (NCC-1371) was a member of the "starship class". According to the comics USS Republic was a Baton Rouge Class vessel (of the starship class).

Since USS Saladin was a starship, too, it looks like we have to conclude that Kirk's first command was another ship ("destroyer class") prior to USS Saladin.

Okay, now you are taking creator intentions too literally. Again, there's no such thing as absolute fact in something like this. Creator intentions can be useful information in forming opinions, and when there's no other information to counter them, there's no harm in taking them into consideration. Since there's not a shred of evidence that Kirk didn't command an earlier ship, there's no reason to doubt TMoST's assertion that he did. But where later evidence does clash with creator intentions, it's unreasonable to treat them as binding -- since, after all, creators change their minds all the time, and it actually goes against the creators' intentions to ignore their later, more refined ideas in favor of the early, rough ideas that they deliberately abandoned.

In this case, the early, awkward use of "Starship Class" has long since been superseded by a more plausible usage wherein "starship" is a generic term for any interstellar spacecraft and ships are given class names that are generally taken from the first vessel in the class. There are decades' worth of evidence to support that usage and it makes no sense to ignore all that.