More warlike - Klingons or Romulans

[Hypaspist]

This is a question going back to the earliest incarnations of both. I think it's not as simple as just assuming that the Romulans were less warlike because they didn't use bladed weapons and growl and all of that. The more warlike they are on the surface doesn't mean that they are more belligerent. A good analogy is Prussia in the post-Napoleonic 19th century: while known for being a severe military state, they only fought three wars - and all in the span of a decade.

I always thought that Klingons were best when they were evil and incomprehensible from our (future) mindset, while we were natural enemies to them because everything the Federation does is understood by them as aggression. Millions of years of evolving into an advanced warrior race makes them not blink at executing prisoners, taking resources from helpless people, and in summary executions of their own subordinates (and occasionally superiors) if they feel it is justified for the greater good of their own people. They are also fearful of the Federation meddling in their internal affairs and in their expansion - which isn't done with aggressive intent, but it appears to be.
So they're not like children, destroying everything just because they get mad. Being cold and calculating is a strategy to them after all. So while their entire culture is based around martial values, it has more to do with the way that they evolved and because of centuries of necessity.

The Romulans, on the other hand, are almost never portrayed in a very forgiving light. Their whole beginning as a separate race goes back to them choosing to reject a philosophy of peace. Even when they act completely restrained, it is clear that they allow themselves to derive satisfaction from doing all of the same villainous things that Klingons do. It also shows that it is not so much an evolutionary or practical imperative because of their widespread dissent and a need to have armies of secret police to squash it. So it seems to me that the Romulans are, in fact, more militaristic when put in perspective.

 

[scotpens]

First of all, are we talking Trek TOS or later Trek? In the original series, the Romulans (who were introduced first, in "Balance of Terror") were meant to be the "good" bad guys. Although militaristic, aggressive, and ruthless in combat, they had commendable qualities like stoicism, bravery, integrity, and devotion to duty.

The Klingons, OTOH, were originally supposed to be the "bad" bad guys. According to TMOST:

More powerful than the Romulans, the Klingons are less admirable characters. Their only rule of life is that rules are made to be broken by shrewdness, deceit or power. Cruelty is something admirable; honor is a despicable trait. They will go out of their way to provoke an incident with the Federation.

Interesting, considering the honor-obsessed Klingons of TNG and subsequent Trek shows. With the Klingon-Federation alliance, the Romulans and Klingons essentially switched places.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Klingons are often presented as to so obsessed with their militaristic honor, it's hard to believe they managed to build a civilization. Only occasionally, do we see a Klingon who isn't either military or retired military. It's often hard to believe there are Klingon farmers, architects, day-laborers, shop keepers, teachers, doctors, nurses and all the other professions/occupations found in any developed civilization. Of course, I'm imposing my human bias on an alien race but it's hard to imagine a civilization of only military personnel.

 

[BigJake]

The "warrior race" schtick had its virtues, but it ultimately weakened the Klingons as a believable civilization. It's still preferable to the stock Asiatic bad guy schtick they originally represented, though. (I'm a Ford Klingon man ultimately, for those to whom it will mean anything, precisely because he was the first to give them a grounding and rationale beyond "we're the Not-Japs" and he did it without making them into a semi-romanticized "warrior race.")

Intriguingly, the Romulans in TNG were portrayed as the personification of guile wearing a mask of patriotism and civic honour; they could often be counted upon to try to lure the good guys into a posture whereby they could portray their reaction, falsely, as "self-defense," as we see in "The Defector." OTOH, Klingon "honor" is also a complicated thing in TNG, since it too ultimately prizes "guile" and ideals like "in battle, the greatest honor lies in victory."

I don't think there's any particular way to gauge who is more militaristic as TOS goes, because we saw relatively little of the Romulans in TOS beyond "Balance of Terror" and "The Enterprise Incident." The honorable commander in the former could just as easily be an exception as the rule. I don't know that there's any particular way to gauge them in TNG either, it's mostly a matter of different styles and trappings.

 

[Hypaspist]

I always rationalized that they achieved those ends on their own but that they had a different drive for doing so. TNG Klingons made them harder to believe because they were seemingly more anti-intellectual. I'd rationalize that the reason that they, unlike the Chalnoth, the Nausicaans, and other warrior races, were able to become so powerful is because they got into space on their own. Yeah we are supposed to assume that every single alien race discovered warp somehow, but I don't buy it. It's not as if the Prime Directive had always existed, and there were space-faring powers long before Starfleet ever existed.

I had always assumed that the Romulans came to Romulus a long time before and got there after taking a cryo-sleep migration or something. They had just achieved a level of space travel that was capable of some kind of warp speed when they first encountered the Federation, but they were still no technological powerhouse. I think it makes sense too, when you consider how long they must have been on Romulus in order to adapt to its environment so visibly.

First of all, are we talking Trek TOS or later Trek? In the original series, the Romulans (who were introduced first, in "Balance of Terror") were meant to be the "good" bad guys. Although militaristic, aggressive, and ruthless in combat, they had commendable qualities like stoicism, bravery, integrity, and devotion to duty.

The Klingons, OTOH, were originally supposed to be the "bad" bad guys. According to TMOST:

More powerful than the Romulans, the Klingons are less admirable characters. Their only rule of life is that rules are made to be broken by shrewdness, deceit or power. Cruelty is something admirable; honor is a despicable trait. They will go out of their way to provoke an incident with the Federation.

Interesting, considering the honor-obsessed Klingons of TNG and subsequent Trek shows. With the Klingon-Federation alliance, the Romulans and Klingons essentially switched places.

I think it's safe to say that they were switched for convenience. They couldn't do all of the Klingon plots that they had been holding on to for so long because of the alliance, so they made the easier switch.

I think that there is some sort of continuity to be had though. The Romulans always had a secretive air about them. Spock even theorized, correctly, that they were those who had rejected Vulcan beliefs and were therefore capable of brutality that was excessive even by the standards of Earth's history (as Vulcans once had been). Assuming that the split served to flush out all of the worst elements of Vulcan society, it makes sense that they would be capable of such villainy as is shown in TNG. It also makes sense that they would have to adopt such strong qualities of loyalty to the state as opposed to the race. Even the captain in Balance of Terror, while probably representing the best qualities of his species, is still acting out of a certain level of fear. The bond of his crew is not as great as his fear of the Praetor, and the political maneuverings of his subordinates are at odds with their own credo of Duty.

Another thing about TOS Klingons is that they are never shown to have a disdain for Honor at all. Again, they aren't overly concerned with war crimes or any of that, but the more we saw of them, the more redeemable they became. A lot of what carried over into TNG (maybe a little too much) was pretty well established in "Day of the Dove." They preferred honorable combat when possible, and were noted for placing a lot of emphasis on their dueling tradition. Kang almost seems to expect the Federation to think the way it does because it lines up with their own propaganda.

 

[BigJake]

The Klingons were also shown to have considerably more respect for a fighting enemy than a supine one in "Errand of Mercy," which was perhaps the seed of what followed.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Neither one has anything on Humans.


Oh Humans often moan about not wanting to fight, to always come in peace, to be extending the hand of friendship, yadda, yadda. But when they encounter anything they don't like, duck for cover...

 

[Nerys Myk]

First of all, are we talking Trek TOS or later Trek? In the original series, the Romulans (who were introduced first, in "Balance of Terror") were meant to be the "good" bad guys. Although militaristic, aggressive, and ruthless in combat, they had commendable qualities like stoicism, bravery, integrity, and devotion to duty.

We saw a couple of "good" Romulans in BOT, but they were also shown as not being the norm. They were out of step with what Romulan society had become. They were essentially Good Germans in the midst of the Nazi regime.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I think trying to make sense of who is more honorable between Romulans and Klingons is somewhat futile. Klingon honor is not the same as human honor, or Romulans for that matter, and the same goes for Romulans.


My take is this: Klingons are more aggressive, and impulsive. They are ready to go to war at the drop of the hat. Doesn't matter if you are talking about Errand of Mercy, or the TNG\DS9 era. Klingons are sort of a cross between Vikings, the Spartans, and Samurai, as far as I am concerned.

The Romulans on the other hand, study their opponents looking for a weakness, in a Sun Tsu sort of way. Or a Caesar or Marcus Aurelius sort of way, for that matter. After all, they are modeled after the Roman Empire. The Romulans are more cold and calculating thank Klingons. They will go to war, and once war is engaged, they will fight bitterly. But I think they put a lot more forethought into their conquests, sometimes taking decades for a plan to come to fruition. Klingons almost seem to make up war as they go, at least in the TNG era.

 

[Hypaspist]

I think Klingons wanting war is situational. They had legitimate grievances against the Federation, or at least they believed that they did. I think it has more to do with protecting their territory and reputation more than an actual desire for conquest. The war with Cardassia is another thing, spurred on by the Founders and under the sub-par leadership of Gowron. I would guess that whatever the Klingon word for "peace" is probably has a double meaning.

I think Romulans fit the stereotypical (in a 1960s sort of way) Roman Empire parallel: they ARE constantly planning to increase their power and territory. You can even take the I, Claudius parallel further, with the birth of the Vulcan philosophy being an analogy for the beginning of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Whatever the inspiration, I think you're more or less right with them being more calculating and more like us in a lot of ways.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm not a TOS expert so my response is based on TNG era portrayal.

In TNG/DS9/Voyager era, Klingons start out looking like a fatigued civilization settling into a new less warlike order of things coasting on the mythology of their former conquering glory. Then, in DS9 when they have rebuilt their power base, the leader seeking to consolidate his political base, takes an opportunity to start wars with former enemies to sell himself as the inheritor of that old mythology.

(As I was typing this I realized an ironically prophetic real world comparison.)

The Klingons seek out 'hot' war, waged conventionally with ships and soldiers.

The Romulans on the other hand wage war like a political chess match. They try to create narratives to give them advantages they can leverage using the threat of war to expand their power base. They prefer to gain advantage in a long cold war rather than a conventional war.

So both, in different ways.

 

[havokreign]

Klingons, because they're overt and don't care otherwise.

Romulans seem, in lore, very passive-aggressive.

Also my account was activated, so whoo-hoo!