Why are Chakotay and Farkas the only true Captain?
Why would Galen and Demeter only me Captained by a Commander?
Why would Galen and Demeter only me Captained by a Commander?
Full Circle fleet question?
- Thread starter GalaxyClass1701
- Start date
Because they're smaller ships. Star Trek has historically been pretty bad about portraying this, but generally in naval practice (as I understand it from my strictly civilian perspective), smaller ships are commanded by lower-ranking officers (though the title "captain" is used for any ship commander regardless of rank) and larger, more important capital ships are commanded by officers of captain's rank and above.
Thanks Christopher do you have any plans for a sequel for Only Superhuman? The first was amazing!
I'd love to, but the sales didn't justify another novel. There could be additional short stories in the future, though. In fact, I have a story in the June 2016 issue of Analog coming out this week, "Murder on the Cislunar Railroad," which is sort of an indirect prequel to Only Superhuman.
Yep, the only Trek that really attempted to present this was DS9, with the practice being explained in the episode Behind the Lines. And although it is strange how often we see actual O6 captains commanding small ships in Star Trek, it doesn't bother me as much as the strange practice seen in the Abrams movies where the bridge officer on duty for a shift is referred to as "Captain." Seriously, where did that idea even come from?
Trek's depiction of ranks as it relates to seniority and position has been kinda goofy starting around TNG if you hold it to 20th/21st century American norms. If the US Navy is a baseline thne a Defiant class ship would likely be 'captained' by a Lt Commander on the fast track. These types of things do evolve...you don't hear about brevetted officers like you would have at the end 19th century. I think other nations do align rank with position like we see most often in Trek.
In my head I have always rationalized this as a progression system impacted by a culture focused on self actualization and species of varying lifespans serving together. The 5-10 year ensign phenomenon has always come the closest to bothering me; I figure that would be just about right to a Vulcan, but way too long for an Ocampa.
In my head I have always rationalized this as a progression system impacted by a culture focused on self actualization and species of varying lifespans serving together. The 5-10 year ensign phenomenon has always come the closest to bothering me; I figure that would be just about right to a Vulcan, but way too long for an Ocampa.
It definitely seems in Star Trek that promotion has to be both earned and actively pursued; take Picard in the "Tapestry" timeline, for one example, or Deanna's pursuit of commander rank. Which is likely part of exactly the cultural effects you mention. At upper ranks there might be some pressure to get people moving up or out in order to clear the way for those that are more eager to advance, I suppose, in order to keep one person's stability from interfering with another person's motivation. But the fleet is so broad that at lower ranks I imagine there would be almost no advancement pressure, since it's rare that keeping in such a position would actually impede anyone else's career mobility. A person can probably stay at ensign or lieutenant j.g. as long as they'd like if they're in a position where they're actively contributing to Starfleet and they don't have any desire for higher position.
I remember seeing some old tie-in reference book that described "Acting Ensign Wesley Crusher"'s rank as a brevet posting.
I think all of the Maquis on Voyager were also brevetted during the series which was the explanation for the different rank insignia. You don't see it in the contemporary US military these days, but I guess it made a comeback
.
I think all of the Maquis on Voyager were also brevetted during the series which was the explanation for the different rank insignia. You don't see it in the contemporary US military these days, but I guess it made a comeback
This is a very common misunderstanding of brevet promotions as used in the 19th century. The brevet rank was almost* purely honorary and didn't convey any higher authority. In the US Army it meant something in social situations at one time, but so many brevets were handed out toward the end of the Civil War that it even lost most of that standing. The function of rewarding exceptional conduct or achievement was taken over much more effectively by the systems of decorations that arose in the 20th century.
*There were some situations in the US where the president could order someone to temporary duty at his brevet rank, but these were rare.
Yes, several.
Similar threads
