Romulus - The original Homeworld of the Vulcan Species?

[Unimatrix Q]

A thought that came to me: What if Vulcan History had been revised and it was the Disciples of Surak that fled Romulus and colonized Vulcan?

It would make sense as Romulus has a more diverse ecosystem and seems to have a bigger population than Vulcan. Maybe it is a secret that only a few if any clan leaders and probably Archer know and hasn't been revealed as it could only destabilize the relationships between the Vulcan people, the Federation and the Romulans.

Maybe Spock knew it, too and it was one of his reasons to go to Romulus and found his reunification movement.

 

[The Wormhole]

Except, the fact the Romulans fled Vulcan and settled on Romulus is also part of Romulan history. I would also assume there must be some sort of historical evidence pointing to a civilization existing on Vulcan prior to the time or Surak, and likewise a distinct lack of evidence of on Romulus of civilization prior to the arrival of the Romulans. Not to mention, presumably there's also evidence that sentient life evolved on Vulcan and none on Romulus.

Finally, aren't the Remans meant to be native to Remus until the Romulans arrived and enslaved them? If so, that makes three distinct recorded histories all telling the same thing.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Except, the fact the Romulans fled Vulcan and settled on Romulus is also part of Romulan history. I would also assume there must be some sort of historical evidence pointing to a civilization existing on Vulcan prior to the time or Surak, and likewise a distinct lack of evidence of on Romulus of civilization prior to the arrival of the Romulans. Not to mention, presumably there's also evidence that sentient life evolved on Vulcan and none on Romulus.

Finally, aren't the Remans meant to be native to Remus until the Romulans arrived and enslaved them? If so, that makes three distinct recorded histories all telling the same thing.

Perhaps there were secret negotiations between Romulus and Vulcan to keep the population in the dark. And the Remans could have been enslaved by the protovulcans earlier than assumed and have lost their entire history, as they are only a slave population.

 

[The Wormhole]

But if the Vulcans are not native to Vulcan why have they evolved traits specifically suited to life on that planet, like the inner eyelids or ability to operate in its thinner atmosphere? If Romulus truly is the planet of origin why doesn't ponn farr compel everyone to go back there?

 

[Christopher]

If Vulcan history were only 2000 years old, it would be enormously obvious from the (lack of) historical and archaeological record. Indeed, since that's only about 8-10 Vulcan lifespans, it would be seen as comparatively recent history, not something lost in the mists of time. There is absolutely no way the Vulcan people and their Federation partners could not know it if the Vulcans were immigrants to their planet. You can't hide something like that.

There have been canonical references to things from Vulcan history and prehistory that predated the Sundering. The "obelisks of ancient Vulcan" were mentioned as an important archaeological find in VGR: "One Small Step." The Stone of Gol from TNG: "Gambit" was from the era of warfare before Surak's rise. We know from ENT: "The Andorian Incident" that the P'Jem monastery was founded nearly 3000 years before the episode, or more than 1200 years before the Sundering.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

But if the Vulcans are not native to Vulcan why have they evolved traits specifically suited to life on that planet, like the inner eyelids or ability to operate in its thinner atmosphere? If Romulus truly is the planet of origin why doesn't ponn farr compel everyone to go back there?

Maybe genetic engineering! Perhaps the Ponn Farr thing was thought to be a good idea or it was the price of the genetic changes.

 

[Timo]

Pon farr could simply draw two individuals together, and T'Pring happened to be on Vulcan and (like most of her species) highly unlikely to ever leave the planet. Or then pon farr pulls to the location where the telepathic link was forged.

As for the adaptations, the only one we know of is the eyelid, and its behavior on Spock definitely counts as a malfunction and gives little indication on what it's really supposed to achieve and how. There's no indication Romulus would have thicker air than Vulcan...

While I don't think the idea of Romulus as the point of origin has much merit, it would be interesting to learn about the true origin of the species. What did the Sargonians do, exactly? What about the prehistory of Vulcans made Spock think that Sargonians did it? Was there a single world of origin for the species, or was it created on multiple worlds simultaneously or programmed to emerge on multiple worlds at various times (see "The Chase")?

Are humans any different?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

But if the Vulcans are not native to Vulcan why have they evolved traits specifically suited to life on that planet, like the inner eyelids or ability to operate in its thinner atmosphere? If Romulus truly is the planet of origin why doesn't ponn farr compel everyone to go back there?

Maybe genetic engineering! Perhaps the Ponn Farr thing was thought to be a good idea or it was the price of the genetic changes.

If you have to make a ton of assumptions to explain how your theory fits the facts, it's probably not a very supportable theory.

And we know from "Return to Tomorrow" that Vulcans have records of their prehistory as actually being on Vulcan. (There were "discrepancies" before then, true, but Spock's line shows that they know that after a certain point in the very distant past they were definitively on Vulcan.)

 

[Christopher]

It would make sense as Romulus has a more diverse ecosystem and seems to have a bigger population than Vulcan.

Now, here's a logical pitfall: Deciding something is true just because it "makes sense" according to your expectations. There are many things in reality that go against what we expected to make sense. Space probe photos from distant planets and moons, or telescopic discoveries of exoplanets, have upended our ideas of what makes sense many times. The universe constantly forces us to re-examine our preconceptions. So it's very, very unwise to try to adjust the facts to fit our beliefs about what they should be. We should be changing our beliefs to fit the facts.

I once came across a book insisting that some ancient cataclysm must have caused Venus and Mars to switch places in their orbits, merely because each planet seemed to "belong" in the other's orbit -- by which the author meant that Mars would be more likely to be habitable in Venus's orbit and vice-versa. The unexamined assumption there was that a planet being habitable was some kind of natural default setting and that a departure from it was some kind of failure of what was "supposed" to happen. The author wasn't thinking scientifically, just making a very biased and egocentric assumption (that the universe is designed to accommodate the thing that we are, which is life) and letting that preconception shape their interpretation of the evidence. And it led to a totally unsupported conclusion based merely on the belief that the way things were was not the way they "should" be.

By the same token, just because Romulus seems like a more plausible home for life than Vulcan does, that perception alone does not mean there's anything "wrong" with the idea of Vulcan being their origin world. General patterns are not universal requirements. There are always exceptions.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I do recall speculation from - was it "Enterprise"? - screenwriters or showrunners speculating a "What if...?" scenario regarding the Romulans that turned everything we thought we knew on its head, ie. What if it was discovered that the Vulcans were the ancient exiles, and not the the Romulans...?

But it would overturn a lot of "fanon". (T'Pol had already caused enough disturbances in The Force.)

 

[BillJ]

I do recall speculation from - was it "Enterprise"? - screenwriters or showrunners speculating a "What if...?" scenario regarding the Romulans that turned everything we thought we knew on its head, ie. What if it was discovered that the Vulcans were the ancient exiles, and not the the Romulans...?

But it would overturn a lot of "fanon". (T'Pol had already caused enough disturbances in The Force.)

Though I'm not exactly sure what story mileage you could really get from the reversing of an event that happened more than 2,000 years ago? I doubt it would really do anything to the current set up of the universe?

 

[rfmcdpei]

This is not a bad idea, but it would not work in the current continuity. Romulan identity is based on the idea of the proto-Romulans having been Vulcan exiles. Meanwhile, it would have been trivially easy to determine whether Vulcan was a relatively young colony world as opposed to a homeworld settled if at all in antiquity.

 

[Timo]

...Unless the writers introduced the various caveats so easily available to them: volcanic activity and the onmarch of deserts erasing older records, say.

In the current book continuity, we already have some evidence of rewriting of history on Romulus. Onscreen, Romulans haven't been shown being obsessed about "once having been Vulcans", and the reversal could be fairly easily made.

If you have to make a ton of assumptions to explain how your theory fits the facts, it's probably not a very supportable theory.

This is where drama differs from real life: assumptions actually add to the value of the "theory", as they further enrich the drama when turned into facts. A theory that introduces no new facts is lesser than a theory that does... Because "assumption" actually equals "data"!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

For writers making new stories, maybe. But not for readers analyzing existing stories. A reading of the text has to be supported by the text, and while a text can support multiple readings, that doesn't mean a text can support all readings. Some readings are better supported than others. Fahrenheit 451 can be about both censorship and the perceived evils of television, but that doesn't mean it can also be about how we should abolish fire departments before they get too much power.

 

[Gul Re'jal]

This is where drama differs from real life: assumptions actually add to the value of the "theory", as they further enrich the drama when turned into facts. A theory that introduces no new facts is lesser than a theory that does... Because "assumption" actually equals "data"!

A theory is a conclusion, so it should be based on facts, not make them up or introduce them. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is to explore.

 

[Timo]

I don't see where the subject of this thread turned into an analysis of already presented pseudo-facts and only those. It was launched with the words "what if", after all!

Calling this a "theory" is a conceit, a way to bridge the absolutely incompatible worlds of fact and fiction. In both, the more facts you have, the merrier, and the end result has greater solidity thanks to the quantity. But in fiction, all facts are made up, and a "theory" is absolutely obligated to make up at least a few more of them, or else there would not be enough of these pseudo-facts to cast doubt on the existing paradigm and nothing to promote change.

Or is this all about the "no story ideas on this forum" ban?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

Which addresses Gul Re'jal's response, but not mine.

It started with "What if", sure, but we gave reasons why it couldn't be. It'd be like asking "What if all this time Superman wasn't Clark Kent but actually Jimmy Olson, without changing any past comics". Not all possible scenarios are compatible with a given narrative, some of them simply can't be true.

 

[Christopher]

It started with "What if", sure, but we gave reasons why it couldn't be. It'd be like asking "What if all this time Superman wasn't Clark Kent but actually Jimmy Olson, without changing any past comics". Not all possible scenarios are compatible with a given narrative, some of them simply can't be true.

Although, honestly, that sounds like exactly the kind of story they'd do in a '60s Superman comic -- either as an imaginary story or as something that turned out at the end to be some elaborate trick by Superman.

 

[Melakon]

However, a variation of OP's theory might account for the inhabitants of Mintaka III, described as proto-Vulcans.

 

[Idran]

However, a variation of OP's theory might account for the inhabitants of Mintaka III, described as proto-Vulcans.

I think that's covered well enough by Sargon's people; we already knew that Vulcans might not be genetically native to Vulcan based on "Return to Tomorrow", and that episode also hinted that the explanation was that Vulcanoids such as Vulcans, Zami, and Mintakans might've been seeded by Sargon's people.