Who said these Klingons are honourable?
New Info on Michael Burnham
- Thread starter Titus Andronicus
- Start date
Who said these Klingons are honourable?
The fact that Honor is the bedrock of Klingon culture?
Have you met the Klingons?
A couple. Haven't you?Have you met the Klingons?
I wouldn't turn my back on them.
That's the Breen not the Klingons.
Then you've never met a Klingon.
From TOS - The Deady Years (from Season 2):
From TOS - "The Corbomite Manuever" (from Season 1):
So, again, it appears Kirk took 10 to 11 years to make it to the rank of Captain.
So, depending on when you want to say Kirk assumed command - he was probably between 30 - 33 years (depending on how long before TOS - "Where No Man Has Gone Before" he actually was granted promotion to Captain and command of the 1701.
From TOS - "The Corbomite Manuever" (from Season 1):
So, again, it appears Kirk took 10 to 11 years to make it to the rank of Captain.
Only established much later on, and even then as a smokescreen for decidedly dishonourable conduct going on behind the scenes.
Besides, we see Klingons carry out attacks using stealth tactics all the time, they clearly don't see it as dishonourable. One such example, the Monac shipyard assault in DS9 s7 was explicitly stated as honourable enough to earn a place in Space Valhalla.
They do believe in honor.. Klingon honor.
Oh please Klingon "Honor" was:
1) Only established during TNG's run
2) A real 'moving target'...
Example:
From DS9: "The Way of the Warrior":
http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/473.htm
^^^
For Klingons "Honor" is i n the eye of the beholder - and Klingons seem to squint A LOT.
General comments about the idea that the information at hand would somehow be novel, unprecedented or even contrary to precedent:
1) We really know nothing about Klingons in this time period, other than there being this "unremitting hostilities" thing. We never hear there would have been a war with them, but we never hear there would not have been one. We hear of some outstanding moments of Klingon aggression like Donatu V or Archanis, but this is never indicated to be a full list or even a list of especially severe or noteworthy cases. It's just whatever is relevant to the adventure at hand, meaning Klingons probably have a very long rap sheet from which Kirk or Chekov can pick suitable cases at will.
2) We hear nothing about Klingon cloaks either way. When Klingons first do explicitly cloak in front of Kirk in ST3, our hero displays no amazement, indeed he instead indicates familiarity down to the technical details and weaknesses of Klingon cloaks specifically. And of course invisibility or altered visibility as a concept is old news in every adventure except the anomalious "Balance of Terror".
3) We know little about the ability of the UFP to guard its borders against intrusion. Certainly even advanced cultures such as the First Federation have difficulty at that. And finding adversaries in Spot X is never commented upon with "How did they get past our sensors?", suggesting there's no great faith put in such sensors no matter how good they might theoretically be. This continues to TNG, where it's initially considered quite plausible the Borg could be attacking Luna by surprise - and it then turns out it's a surprise approach by mere Ferengi, further undermining the potency of the defensive sensors!
4) We know little about Sarek's past. Would he be married to Amanda at the time of Michael's childhood yet? Or is it this chance encounter with a human child that eventually brings him to contact with Amanda, in the late 2220s or so?
Basically, the writers really can pick any point in the timeline between ENT and TOS and insert whatever they please, and it still cannot be in direct contradiction with anything much - the timeline there is blank for the most part.
Timo Saloniemi
1) We really know nothing about Klingons in this time period, other than there being this "unremitting hostilities" thing. We never hear there would have been a war with them, but we never hear there would not have been one. We hear of some outstanding moments of Klingon aggression like Donatu V or Archanis, but this is never indicated to be a full list or even a list of especially severe or noteworthy cases. It's just whatever is relevant to the adventure at hand, meaning Klingons probably have a very long rap sheet from which Kirk or Chekov can pick suitable cases at will.
2) We hear nothing about Klingon cloaks either way. When Klingons first do explicitly cloak in front of Kirk in ST3, our hero displays no amazement, indeed he instead indicates familiarity down to the technical details and weaknesses of Klingon cloaks specifically. And of course invisibility or altered visibility as a concept is old news in every adventure except the anomalious "Balance of Terror".
3) We know little about the ability of the UFP to guard its borders against intrusion. Certainly even advanced cultures such as the First Federation have difficulty at that. And finding adversaries in Spot X is never commented upon with "How did they get past our sensors?", suggesting there's no great faith put in such sensors no matter how good they might theoretically be. This continues to TNG, where it's initially considered quite plausible the Borg could be attacking Luna by surprise - and it then turns out it's a surprise approach by mere Ferengi, further undermining the potency of the defensive sensors!
4) We know little about Sarek's past. Would he be married to Amanda at the time of Michael's childhood yet? Or is it this chance encounter with a human child that eventually brings him to contact with Amanda, in the late 2220s or so?
Basically, the writers really can pick any point in the timeline between ENT and TOS and insert whatever they please, and it still cannot be in direct contradiction with anything much - the timeline there is blank for the most part.
Timo Saloniemi
This is a new version. They've changed the Klingons.
The Klingons are the new Breen, an dmaybe the Breen are the new Ferengi?
I think you need to go back and watch "Private Little War", "Errand of Mercy", and " Friday's Child". Like it or not, those conniving and manipulative Klingons were just as "Klingon" as the TNG version.
...And even the honorable TNG Klingons were seen to be backstabbers, political infighters, liars, and cheats when that "honorable" curtain was pulled away a little.
And as for "acting like Romulans", I could argue that the Romulan Commanders we saw in "Balance of Terror" (Mark Lenard) and "The Enterprise Incident'" (Joanne Linville) acted with more honor and a higher moral code (albeit possibly misguided morals, from our heroes' perspective) than any Klingon in TOS.
Last edited:
I said the Klingons who specifically attacked Vulcan, not all Klingons.
Every Klingon must believe and act in lockstep with all Klingons.
Because Klingons are a race, you see, and as is well-known all members of a "race" are temperamentally, intellectually and culturally identical. This is important IRL so that we can tell the difference between "us" and "them."
Anyone who misses the sarcasm dripping off of this post should...just read past it.
That is one reason I like this idea of the different houses maybe operating on different rules and each kinda being their own thing.
Never had any problem with it. After all, the character was meant to be exceptional as captains go
