He can still be exceptional in rising through postings faster than his contemporaries.
Kirk's First Command?
- Thread starter Albertese
- Start date
Well, that's your opinion but others like myself have a different approach and mine is "First Come, First Served", especially if popular work (like these comics) outside the production circle is not refuted by prime / onscreen canon.
Well, the Baton Rouge Class was designed "by someone involved in the show" (i.e. Rick Sternbach), so I'd rather find it difficult to discredit it as fanon or something like this. And the comics put Rick Sternbach's design in a nice pre-TOS context, IMHO.
I really wished you could stop dealing in these "Sith Absolutes" because you can't possibly know who else treats it "as fact".
Back to the original topic this is were I find myself between a rock and a hard place: If the Baton Rouge Class Republic is a "starship" then a Baton Rouge class vessel can't be a "destroyer" and Kirk's first command (suggested to be the Saladin).
Bob
No, it's not my opinion. What is shown on screen is canon, fact. Everything else is non-canon. I didn't come up with that rule, the creators and current personnel in charge of Star Trek did. So while your personal approach may work for you, it doesn't work for the people who actually are in charge of making those decisions.
AFAIK, Sternbach was not involved in the show in any way when he wrote the Spaceflight Chronology. He was basically a fan, just like you and I. Just because he was involved later makes no difference as far as the information in that book is concerned. If I wrote a fanfic and then twenty years later I became involved with a Star Trek production, my fanfic doesn't automatically become official. Mr. Sternbach can correct me if I'm wrong.
Since neither of us is in charge of determining what's canon fact or not in the Star Trek universe, I would say that your issue is actually with the creators and current personnel in charge of Star Trek, not me. I'm just the messenger. If your personal opinions conflict with what they determine is canon, then you're welcome to take your issues up with them.
Last edited:
Except there's no indication that the TOS Enterprise is in fact the "Crème de la Crème." The Enterprise could be just another medium sized cruiser. In a fleet where such crusiers (in various classes) existed by the hundreds.
We do know that the Enterprise is a older ship, it's the only example of a Trek hero ship that wasn't a new construction.
And she does seem to get a fair number of little shit assignments, along with the occasional glamour job.
Based on uniform insignia, Kirk might have still been the rank of commander when he first took command of the ship (WNMHGB).
Stephen Decatur was 25 years when he made captain, and Star Trek does have a strong connection to the age of sail. Starfleet is also shown to be a dangerous profession.
Constantly creating room at the top?
Modern day US Navy would be like this ...
4 years after commissioning to make Lieutenant
5 plus years to make Lieutenant Commander
4 plus years to Commander.
So while Kirk's advancement was rapid, it wasn't freakishly fast.
Logically speaking, how is that possible? The Defiant and Enterprise are of an identical configuration. If one is a 'starship', then the other must be as well. There's nothing about the Enterprise that makes it special - other than the crew, of course.
Just being "the messenger" do you have the message, its context, its date and the source?
I'm pretty sure that such a statement from the creators (e.g. Roddenberry, Justman, Piller) didn't contain a P.S. along the lines "We don't mind that those that come after us revise the integrity of our characters and feature Star Trek in any way they feel necessary."
We can certainly argue how to deal with popular concepts that have not been refuted by on screen canon. I just don't think they're up for grabs and should be treated with appropriate respect, instead.
So then, Mr. Probert's painting of the docking bay of the Enterprise-D for the Captain's Yacht is fanfic because at the time he had been painting it, he was no longer involved with the show / a member of a Star Trek production?
The way I see it, because both had become authorized Star Trek spaceship designers, this authenticates their pre- or post-TNG Star Trek related work to some extent. YMMV.
I'd also like to add that the Enterprise is a "United Space Ship" while Republic was referred to by Kirk in "Court-Martial" as "United Starship" / "United Star Ship".
Could indicate a reason not to assume that NCC-1371 was a member of the Constitution Starship Class.
Bob
So anything anyone says or does in regards to Star Trek prior to working on the actual Star Trek TV shows becomes official once they are hired to work on a show? That is simply insane.
Franz Josef invented the Saladin well after TMoST. So, the reference in TMoST reference couldn't possibly be a reference to a Saladin. Personally, of all the currently existing designs out there, I would favor the Saladin, but let's not suggest there is any officialness to that.
Sternbach didn't write it. He only illustrated it. And it was released in 1980, which suggests that the illustrations were being done in 1979 or so. And Sternbach did do graphic art for TMP, so he was officially involved with Trek. But this doesn't make the SFC official canon. Don't get me wrong, I love the work in there, and I make most of the material part of my personal Star Trek universe. But again, we can't say SFC is canon or in any real way binding.
In numerous episodes, We are told that Enterprise is a Starship, and starships are the top of the spectrum. Off the top of my head: "Bread and Circuses," Marrik cries about how he never qualified to command a starship--they're very special ships; "The Deadly Years," Commodore Dopey, or whoever that dude was was super surprised at how much a starship could accomplish; "Court Martial" where Commodore Stone tells Kirk "Not one man in a million can do what you and I have done; command a starship."
So, while the Enterprise has some years, I think we're meant to assume that the ship has been refit to be still at the cutting edge.
--Alex
Also, Spock is called the best first officer in the fleet in "Amok Time". I doubt such a talented officer would be allowed to toil on a mid-range assignment for an extended period of time.
There are hints sprinkled throughout TOS that point to the Constitution-class being top of the line.
Go call up CBS, the current people in charge of Star Trek. Ask them what they consider canon if you don't believe the messenger.
Well of course they didn't; don't be silly. Because at the time TOS was being produced, none of them had any idea it would have the cultural impact and longevity that it did. They were just producing a TV show that had a high probability of getting cancelled after the first season and just fading away into obscurity. They would have had no grandiose objective for its future like what many an uber-Trek fan believes. And to throw your own medicine back at you, you "can't possibly know" what any of these guys were thinking at the time.
But "revise the integrity and feature Star Trek in any way they feel necessary" is exactly what happened for the next 40+ years. For better and for worse.
And that's where you're confused. You think that if people don't agree with your opinions, they're "disrespecting" Trek and its past, when it isn't anything of the sort. You keep saying that everyone is "disrespecting" Mr. Probert's work by simply having the gall to think that Sternbach's design was the real ship. Please.
They're simply disagreeing with your opinion on the matter based on evidence that they feel overrules your evidence. But you know what? This has nothing to do with the OP, so I'll just drop it.Was that painting seen in the show? Was it used in any scene? If not, then it's just an artistic representation of something from the Trek universe, just like any other Trek fanfic. Are you now going to argue that this painting is canon? That would be stretching credibility quite a bit.
It's a very nice painting. But it's just a painting. It has no more credibility to Star Trek canon than if I painted it.
Authenticates it for what? Being canon? See above.
BTW, love your new avatar.
Thanks for the clarification. And I also love the artwork in that book; I even own a copy.
Interesting. So if one were to speculate that Kirk did in fact command a destroyer, not only do we not have a name (as per your original question), but we don't even have a design
Last edited:
"Court Martial" establishes Kirk as being part of a small elite, one way or another. Perhaps you get special respect when you fly a small, outdated and in every way expendable ship in a deep space exploration mission with practically zero survival odds?
...Although the Defiant in DS9 being a piece of discarded junk was a nice change of pace, too.
Quite possibly. Either Starfleet didn't want to expend full Captains on missions like that. Or then Kirk's original mission was to probe not just the Galactic Barrier but the space beyond that... And an older man would have succumbed to sheer age before returning from such a sortie?
This still makes Kirk sorta special, as all other commanders of vessels or installations were roles played by older actors, or actors who looked older than Kirk was supposed to be (and never mind what Kirk himself really looked like).
Timo Saloniemi
Really? Obviously such an artist is hired because the creators liked his or her particular approach to illustrate Star Trek and gave such an artist the opportunity to create real "canon".
IMHO, that should account for something.
That is not what I'm saying. According to "Yesterday's Enterprise" events took place in a changed time line of our universe, Probert's Enterprise-C was being shown the door to leave. With "Redemption II" Events in YE were relocated into a "parallel time line" or parallel universe. The look of the "C" became instantly conjectural, but the conference lounge wall display of the "D" revealed the correct configuration of the ship that left our universe.
Let's say I disagree with the apparent ease the Probert design had been deemed non-canon while simultaneously nobody noticed the discrepancy between "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Redemption II" which was the key that brought the Probert "C" back.
Thanks, but you'll forgive that I can think instantly of three good reasons (top to bottom) why I'll rather turn into the Salt Vampire before really believing that.
Bob
Why not? If the Enterprise can be a "starship," a Constritution-Class, and a Heavy Cruiser, why can't the Saladin be a "starship," a Baton-Rouge Class, and a Destroyer?
The problem there lies in the TOS definition of "starship": that's a ship category that's supposed to be special, with just a small brotherhood of especially respected skippers and all. If destroyers are "starships", they should be special, too, but that's unlikely for two reasons:
1) Destroyers in the real world are the antithesis of special. They are the most affordable units in a bluewater navy, unless one counts escorts that aren't supposed to fight against other ships.
2) If Kirk began his career onboard a destroyer, then the Trek definition of it is probably somewhat short of special, too. The point would be to indicate an upward curve in Kirk's career, after all.
Of course, there's no problem if
a) we use the definition of "starship" from TNG or ENT rather than from TOS. Perhaps the definition changed only in the middle of Kirk's career? Or perhaps we misunderstood the definition in TOS?
b) we use the definition of "destroyer" from Diane Duane's My Enemy, My Ally. In that novel, the aggressive designation is reserved for giant four-nacelled superships perhaps three to ten times larger than the Enterprise.
Timo Saloniemi
1) Destroyers in the real world are the antithesis of special. They are the most affordable units in a bluewater navy, unless one counts escorts that aren't supposed to fight against other ships.
2) If Kirk began his career onboard a destroyer, then the Trek definition of it is probably somewhat short of special, too. The point would be to indicate an upward curve in Kirk's career, after all.
Of course, there's no problem if
a) we use the definition of "starship" from TNG or ENT rather than from TOS. Perhaps the definition changed only in the middle of Kirk's career? Or perhaps we misunderstood the definition in TOS?
b) we use the definition of "destroyer" from Diane Duane's My Enemy, My Ally. In that novel, the aggressive designation is reserved for giant four-nacelled superships perhaps three to ten times larger than the Enterprise.
Timo Saloniemi
Because TMoST suggested to me that "Starship Class" is reserved for the really big ships and "Destroyer Class" for smaller vessels. Late (but better late than never) "Scout Class" was added by Chekov in ST III and it seemed to be just indicating the size of the yet unidentified vessel (Klingon Bird of Prey).
Before the molehill of the small print on the phaser schematic (Starship Constitution Class) was made into the mountain we are talking about today, the only other identification for a ship was alphabetic (e.g. "Class J starship") and with Bob Justman's "Enterprise Starship Class" both the size class and the individual vessel's class had somehow been beautifully married.
If you know that the Constitution ships belong to the Starship Class you can just write "Constitution [Starship] Class", same probably applies for vessels belonging to the Destroyer Class, e.g. "Saladin [Destroyer] Class".
Bob
Thanks for the replies. I do tend to agree that a Destroyer is likely not a Starship, under the TOS definition.
I see the classification system something like:
I see the classification system something like:
- Starship Class
- Heavy Cruiser Class
- Constitution Class
- Excelsior Class
- Light Cruiser Class
- Miranda Class
- Constellation Class
- Heavy Cruiser Class
- Spaceship Class
- Destroyer Class
- Saladin Class
- Scout Class
- Grissom Class
- Transport Class
- Tug Class
- Destroyer Class
What we're told:
"He entered the Space Academy as a midshipmam at the age of seventeen, the minimum age allowed. He attended the Academy and finished in the top five percent. Kirk rose very rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship) while still quite young. Kirk has been in command of the Enterprise for more than four years and was the youngest Academy graduate ever to have been assigned as a Starship Command Captain."
This was published in The Making Of Star Trek in the summer of 1968 between TOS' seasons two and three.
What this tells us:
- Attended Starfleet Academy at 17 as a midshipman
- While still quite young he was given command of a destroyer equivalent class of spaceship.
- Prior to the third year of the 5-year voyage Kirk has commanded the Enterprise for about four years.
- Youngest to acheive Starship Command.
It doesn't say he commanded a destroyer, but a destroyer equivalent. The destroyer classification was introduced by FJ just as he also introduced the dreadnought class idea.
Having been in command of the Enterprise for some time prior to what we see in TOS also gels with the idea of WNMHGB being set before the 5-year mission and the ship having some sort of refit just prior to that time. So he has the ship for about a year and a half or so before the 5-year mission seen in TOS.
Seems to make sense to me.
"He entered the Space Academy as a midshipmam at the age of seventeen, the minimum age allowed. He attended the Academy and finished in the top five percent. Kirk rose very rapidly through the ranks and received his first command (the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship) while still quite young. Kirk has been in command of the Enterprise for more than four years and was the youngest Academy graduate ever to have been assigned as a Starship Command Captain."
This was published in The Making Of Star Trek in the summer of 1968 between TOS' seasons two and three.
What this tells us:
- Attended Starfleet Academy at 17 as a midshipman
- While still quite young he was given command of a destroyer equivalent class of spaceship.
- Prior to the third year of the 5-year voyage Kirk has commanded the Enterprise for about four years.
- Youngest to acheive Starship Command.
It doesn't say he commanded a destroyer, but a destroyer equivalent. The destroyer classification was introduced by FJ just as he also introduced the dreadnought class idea.
Having been in command of the Enterprise for some time prior to what we see in TOS also gels with the idea of WNMHGB being set before the 5-year mission and the ship having some sort of refit just prior to that time. So he has the ship for about a year and a half or so before the 5-year mission seen in TOS.
Seems to make sense to me.
True, and both things I preferred about TOS to the later somewhat crap-tastic urge to make Enterprise the most important ship ever and Kirk the most important carbon-based lifeform in Starfleet.
Except that throughout the series the subtext is the Enterprise is the top of hill as far as Starfleet is concerned. The Writer's Guide material also emphasize that point.
Similar threads
