The Two Romulan States

[William Leisner]

A little OT, but can someone who paid closer attention to the movie dialogue repeat exactly what was said about Romulus? Because "Romulus was/will be destroyed" is open to a bit of interpretation, from "the planet ceased to exist" to "there was a lot of death and destruction" to "there was a bad electromagnetic pulse that wiped out all our computers and set Romulan society back a few hundred years."

 

[Hartzilla2007]

A little OT, but can someone who paid closer attention to the movie dialogue repeat exactly what was said about Romulus? Because "Romulus was/will be destroyed" is open to a bit of interpretation, from "the planet ceased to exist" to "there was a lot of death and destruction" to "there was a bad electromagnetic pulse that wiped out all our computers and set Romulan society back a few hundred years."

The film showed Romulus being ripped apart by the nova shockwave thing. So It's dead Jim.

It's also in this tv stop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQpLx0mkP2w&feature=related

 

[William Leisner]

Not a lot of wiggle room there.

... unless, this is the same "impressionistic" presentation of facts that allowed Spock to witness the destruction of Vulcan in the skies above Delta Vega. *ponders*

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Not a lot of wiggle room there.

... unless, this is the same "impressionistic" presentation of facts that allowed Spock to witness the destruction of Vulcan in the skies above Delta Vega. *ponders*

Well considering Nero mentioning Romulus burning I'd say not.

 

[Christopher]

There is no way that radiation from a supernova in a different star system (which was the clear implication, that it wasn't Romulus's own sun) could physically shatter a planet like that. If it were intense enough, it could have pretty much the same effects as the pulsar disaster depicted in Mere Anarchy, irradiating the surface (not directly, since the atmosphere would absorb the x-rays and gamma rays, but they'd get re-radiated as UV that would sterilize the surface), turning the atmosphere toxic, and triggering devastating lightning storms. That could certainly be poetically described as a planet burning, at least from the perspective of an organic being to whom the surface and atmosphere of the planet are the only parts of it that really matter.

Of course, there's no way that radiation could reach Romulus in less than a few years or decades, rather than hours or days as implied in the film, so whatever. Anyway, I can handwave that as a subspace sort of thingy (and I used an equivalent fudge already in "Brief Candle"). But yeah, I'd prefer to believe the shot of Romulus disintegrating is an "impressionistic" mind-meld image rather than a concrete fact. Either way, though, the planetary biosphere and civilization are just as dead.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Well...there was the dramatization of the events leading up to Spock and Nero being thrown back in time in Countdown....

Spoiler: the events of "Countdown"

In that comic, it was a mega-super-sized supernova that extended as far as Romulus...and would have reached beyond that had Spock not shot the Red Matter into the star.

 

[nx1701g]

^ But the comic's not canon .

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^ But the comic's not canon .

We're in the Lit forum that argument is Irelevent

[grabs Borg nanoprobe injector and stalks toward nx1701g menacingly muttering resistance is futile]

 

[Myasishchev]

^Can a people really be so lethargic?

Just tragic....

You really, really need to study your history. Lethargy has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the reason the masses generally don't care much about the political games being played among the elites is because the masses are too busy farming or otherwise working to support their families, and don't have the time or luxury to be spectators to those games. Also because generally, when we're talking about a dictatorial or imperial kind of state like the Romulan Star Empire (or the Roman Empire or Chinese dynasties or what-have-you), the changes in power at the top don't have that much effect on the lives of the people down below, because the common folk are going to be just as disenfranchised and powerless no matter which group of nobles or royals or other elites manages to seize power from their rival elites. If the rebels seeking to overthrow the king are going to tax and exploit the peasants just as much as the sitting king does, why should the peasants root for either side? No, they just try to keep their heads down and stay out of the way. They go on with their farming and smithing and cobbling and weaving and so forth, try to keep themselves and their children fed, and hope that the nonsense at the top doesn't trickle far enough down to inconvenience them any more than normal.

So Romulus is an interstellar great power... which has reached the political and economic maturity of 18th century France? Farming, smithing, cobbling, weaving?

I understand that it's an analogy only, but the analogy assumes there's no broad Romulan middle class that is interested and affected by higher-order power shakeups that touch their socially and economically interconnected lives.

Tal'Aura would need at least to rely on the military, a patriotic elite, in order to take or retain power. I find it difficult to believe the average Romulan warbird commander or senatorial hanger-on--as opposed to the average haberdasher, tanner, shepherd or hunter-gatherer--would think it's cool that she offed the entire previous government to which many would have personal and professional connections. She appears to have no program nor any basis for the loyalty of any wide segment of the Romulan population.

Except, strangely, the Remans.

Of course, there's no way that radiation could reach Romulus in less than a few years or decades, rather than hours or days as implied in the film, so whatever. Anyway, I can handwave that as a subspace sort of thingy (and I used an equivalent fudge already in "Brief Candle"). But yeah, I'd prefer to believe the shot of Romulus disintegrating is an "impressionistic" mind-meld image rather than a concrete fact. Either way, though, the planetary biosphere and civilization are just as dead.

Interestingly, this shouldn't matter that much, since the whole point to having a star empire and space colonies is that the species and civilization can survive the loss of a homeworld that is exhausted, poisoned, or blown to pieces by the Death Hobus Star.

It shouldn't even strongly affect the short-term military potential of the Romulan Empire(s), since presumably starships, if not planets, could outrace the "supernova."

 

[captcalhoun]

Romulus destroyed by a supernova? what's this nonsense?

 

[Christopher]

So Romulus is an interstellar great power... which has reached the political and economic maturity of 18th century France? Farming, smithing, cobbling, weaving?

I understand that it's an analogy only, but the analogy assumes there's no broad Romulan middle class that is interested and affected by higher-order power shakeups that touch their socially and economically interconnected lives.

We know Romulus is not a democratic society. It's a dictatorship. We have no evidence that its people are enfranchised. My point is that even if there is a class of Romulan citizens that's interested in and affected by those shakeups, they don't have a say in the outcome. Or if they did before in some way, they don't now, because the entire pre-existing power structure has been destroyed. If Tal'aura can take over by military force, there's no surviving institution that can step up and say she lacks legitimacy.

Tal'Aura would need at least to rely on the military, a patriotic elite, in order to take or retain power. I find it difficult to believe the average Romulan warbird commander or senatorial hanger-on--as opposed to the average haberdasher, tanner, shepherd or hunter-gatherer--would think it's cool that she offed the entire previous government to which many would have personal and professional connections. She appears to have no program nor any basis for the loyalty of any wide segment of the Romulan population.

What you're forgetting, though, is that the Romulan military was on her side when she assassinated the Senate. Shinzon had the support of the military because the late Senate was diminishing the military's power in favor of more peaceful interactions with the Federation. The military wanted the Senate assassinated, and they believed that Shinzon would restore their influence and agendas. When Shinzon turned out to be using them to promote his own separate agenda, they turned against him, but as far as we know, they never turned on Tal'aura.

Interestingly, this shouldn't matter that much, since the whole point to having a star empire and space colonies is that the species and civilization can survive the loss of a homeworld that is exhausted, poisoned, or blown to pieces by the Death Hobus Star.

Which is something the makers of The Undiscovered Country overlooked when they treated the entire Klingon Empire as though it were a single planet.

On the other hand, one can make the case that if an empire is too centralized, if power is too concentrated in the metropolis, then the downfall of the metropolis could mean the dissolution of the empire as a political entity. Indeed, isn't that pretty much normal for empires? When Tenochtitlan fell, the Aztec Empire was done for. When Constantinople fell, the Byzantine Empire was no more (although by that point it barely existed anyway).

 

[Sci]

So Romulus is an interstellar great power... which has reached the political and economic maturity of 18th century France? Farming, smithing, cobbling, weaving?

Sure. There's not inherent correlation between "political maturity" and being powerful. In point of fact, the entire concept of "political maturity" is very suspect -- it's based on the presumption that some cultures are superior to others, are more "mature" than others, and that cultures develop traits in a linear fashion as does a human being in his/her lifecycle. It's absolute nonsense, as we can tell just from looking at American history.

During the Civil War and during Reconstruction, the United States was in a phase of racial idealism. The 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, racist propaganda was actively being fought against, Republicans who believed in racial equality had control of the Congress and most of the state governments, African-Americans were being integrated into the European-American social structure.

And then the Democrats returned to power in the South, and later in Washington. The culture of European-Americans changed; Northern and Southern white folk forged an unofficial agreement that they were both just as American as the other, and turned on African-Americans. Thus began the nadir of American race relations, lasting from 1890 to around 1940. Segregation, Jim Crow, horrific bigotry, the works. John Brown went from being seen as either a hero or, at the very least, a David taking on the Goliath of slavery and losing, to being depicted as actively insane, irrational, and murderous

From the point of view that holds that there's a such thing as linear cultural development towards some sort of egalitarian, democratic "maturity," U.S. culture regressed. But even that's absolute nonsense. It simply changed its value system to one incompatible with what it had previously held. And then, after the 1950s, it changed its value system again.

There's no such thing as political "maturity." There's just change.

Tal'Aura would need at least to rely on the military, a patriotic elite, in order to take or retain power. I find it difficult to believe the average Romulan warbird commander or senatorial hanger-on--as opposed to the average haberdasher, tanner, shepherd or hunter-gatherer--would think it's cool that she offed the entire previous government to which many would have personal and professional connections.

Yeah, but let's not forget that NEM established that a significant faction of the Imperial Fleet -- if not the entire Imperial Fleet leadership -- supported Shinzon in his coup, too. The implication seemed to be that it was the culmination two of long-simmering conflicts -- between Hiren's government and the Remans (who were, presumably, economically and socially empowered more than they'd ever been before the Dominion War), and between Hiren's government and the anti-Federation expansionists in the Imperial Fleet. The Remans and the anti-Federation expansionists joined together.

We know Romulus is not a democratic society. It's a dictatorship. We have no evidence that its people are enfranchised.

To be fair, we don't know how the makeup of the Romulan Senate is determined -- only that the Praetor is normally determined by the members of the Continuing Committee (established in DS9's "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges").

We do know from "Unification" that Senator Pardek represented the "Krocton Segment" and was considered a man of the people. It's possible that the Romulan Senate is determined democratically, or semi-democratically. Perhaps nobles inherit Senate seats and commoners are elected? Maybe commoners are enfranchised, but only if they own property or are members of the Imperial cult?

Given the makeup of the Romulan government that's been established in the novels and canon -- a mostly-ceremonial monarch (the Emperor), a head of government (the Praetor) chosen by a sub-committee of the legislature (the Continuing Committee), a large and centralized legislature (the Senate), a politically active aristocracy (various novels, including The Art of the Impossible), a politically influential military (NEM), a secret police (the Tal Shiar) that's widely feared by the populace and the military ("Face of the Enemy"), and a general population that's fearful of being accused of disloyalty ("Unification")... my impulse would be to compare it to post-Restoration England or Britain of the 18th and 19th Centuries before the Great Reform Act 1832. A hodge-podge and mixture of systems that's not exactly dictatorial but not exactly democratic. Illiberal, certainly, but neither autocratic nor democratic.

I'd feel most comfortable characterizing the Romulan Star Empire -- pre-Shinzon, anyway -- as an illiberal semi-constitutional oligarchic monarchy. (Enough qualifiers in there?)

On the other hand, one can make the case that if an empire is too centralized, if power is too concentrated in the metropolis, then the downfall of the metropolis could mean the dissolution of the empire as a political entity. Indeed, isn't that pretty much normal for empires? When Tenochtitlan fell, the Aztec Empire was done for. When Constantinople fell, the Byzantine Empire was no more (although by that point it barely existed anyway).

I'd infer that to be true of the Klingon and Romulan empires.

Ironically, Donatra's establishment of the Imperial Romulan State with a capital well away from Romulus may be the thing that ensures the continuation of Romulan society after Romulus's destruction!

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I wonder what Donatra's feelings towards Spock would be? How would those two get along?

I'd love to see that tale....

 

[SpaceLama]

My impression of the Romulan government:

Head of State: Emperor (Vulcan's .... Series)

Head of Government: Praetor

Vice Head of Government: Proconsul (also lead ambassador, with ambassadors being consuls)

Representatives: Senators (democratic?)

Cabinet: The Continuing Committee (with un-elected members, such as head of the Tal Shiar)

Form of government: One party state? Constitutional monarchy. Empire.

 

[JD]

^I wonder what Donatra's feelings towards Spock would be? How would those two get along?

I'd love to see that tale....

Did they interact at all in Taking Wing? I know they were both involved in the story, but I can't remember if they had any scenes together.

 

[Karnbeln]

My impression of the Romulan government:

Head of State: Emperor (Vulcan's .... Series)

Head of Government: Praetor

Vice Head of Government: Proconsul (also lead ambassador, with ambassadors being consuls)

Representatives: Senators (democratic?)

Cabinet: The Continuing Committee (with un-elected members, such as head of the Tal Shiar)

Form of government: One party state? Constitutional monarchy. Empire.

I think it's funny how, as the injection of random Roman buzzwords into the Romulan government occured during the race's formative years, the chain of command got reversed.

Before the establishment of the emperor greatly reduced the influence of other Roman political positions, the consuls were at the top of the food chain of currently elected officials in the government (although countered by the tribunes). A proconsul was a consul who stayed in his position for more than his actual term (1 year), usually due to war, during which time new consuls were still elected. The praetors were a level below the consuls, and were actually technically judges. The Senate was a body that housed all living previously elected officials, and they had the collective power to pretty much but the kibosh on anything the consuls or tribunes said by virtue of shear influence. That the praetor is the usual ultimate ruler of the Romulan empire has thus always given me a bit of a chuckle since I first learned of all this.

(Man, give a guy one college class on Rome and a Latinist for a fiancee and he thinks he know everything. Please forgive me for anything improperly stated.)

 

[Sci]

My impression of the Romulan government:

Head of State: Emperor (Vulcan's .... Series)

Head of Government: Praetor

Vice Head of Government: Proconsul (also lead ambassador, with ambassadors being consuls)

Representatives: Senators (democratic?)

Cabinet: The Continuing Committee (with un-elected members, such as head of the Tal Shiar)

Form of government: One party state? Constitutional monarchy. Empire.

I think it's funny how, as the injection of random Roman buzzwords into the Romulan government occured during the race's formative years, the chain of command got reversed.

Before the establishment of the emperor greatly reduced the influence of other Roman political positions, the consuls were at the top of the food chain of currently elected officials in the government (although countered by the tribunes). A proconsul was a consul who stayed in his position for more than his actual term (1 year), usually due to war, during which time new consuls were still elected. The praetors were a level below the consuls, and were actually technically judges. The Senate was a body that housed all living previously elected officials, and they had the collective power to pretty much but the kibosh on anything the consuls or tribunes said by virtue of shear influence. That the praetor is the usual ultimate ruler of the Romulan empire has thus always given me a bit of a chuckle since I first learned of all this.

(Man, give a guy one college class on Rome and a Latinist for a fiancee and he thinks he know everything. Please forgive me for anything improperly stated.)

Hmm. Perhaps the Universal Translator renders the term for the Romulan head of government as praetor because the office originated as a sort of powerful magistrate designed to check the powers of the original head of government (rendered by the UT as consul), but the magistrates later managed to install themselves as the de facto heads of government, with the office of praetor eventually being formally invested with executive power?

A head of government who is also the supreme court judge would, indeed, be very powerful, and would explain why Hiren was legally able to intervene in Soleta's trials during NF, if I recall correctly.

 

[Myasishchev]

^That sounds good. I've always kind of figured the Romulan praetor has many of the same abilities of the Roman censor, as well. Being able to strike people from the senatorial rolls was a great power then and would surely be such in the Romulan state.

At any rate, "praetor" is definitely a term of convenience for humans. Maybe some wires got crossed somewhere, and someone who didn't know their Roman government put the wrong label on things.

The novel Probe has an interesting interpretation, explaining the praetor as constitutionally the third most powerful position in the Empire, presumably below a hereditary "emperor" and a "consul," but in practice the praetor functioned as the executive.

Sorry it took me a while to reply to this post. I was busy finishing some stuff.

Sure. There's not inherent correlation between "political maturity" and being powerful. In point of fact, the entire concept of "political maturity" is very suspect -- it's based on the presumption that some cultures are superior to others, are more "mature" than others, and that cultures develop traits in a linear fashion as does a human being in his/her lifecycle. It's absolute nonsense, as we can tell just from looking at American history.

During the Civil War and during Reconstruction, the United States was in a phase of racial idealism. The 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, racist propaganda was actively being fought against, Republicans who believed in racial equality had control of the Congress and most of the state governments, African-Americans were being integrated into the European-American social structure.

And then the Democrats returned to power in the South, and later in Washington. The culture of European-Americans changed; Northern and Southern white folk forged an unofficial agreement that they were both just as American as the other, and turned on African-Americans. Thus began the nadir of American race relations, lasting from 1890 to around 1940. Segregation, Jim Crow, horrific bigotry, the works.

I would argue that the fact that chattel slavery continued to be outlawed prevented that period from being the nadir of race relations. As awful as it was, I would suppose it was still was better than the period preceding it.

John Brown went from being seen as either a hero or, at the very least, a David taking on the Goliath of slavery and losing, to being depicted as actively insane, irrational, and murderous

In fairness, iirc John Brown was probably insane. And, for my money, a hero. He can be both.

From the point of view that holds that there's a such thing as linear cultural development towards some sort of egalitarian, democratic "maturity," U.S. culture regressed. But even that's absolute nonsense. It simply changed its value system to one incompatible with what it had previously held. And then, after the 1950s, it changed its value system again.

There's no such thing as political "maturity." There's just change.

If I define "political maturity" as describing any society with a broad segment of its population who are literate, skilled, and politically interested, would you still say there's no such thing? I don't equate political maturity with modern western democracy. It's possible to say that the later Soviet Union was in many respects a "politically mature" society, as is the PRC--as was the Union in 1864. Far from really democratic, often extraordinarily far from politically moral, but with a more or less broad political class, who can influence the direction the society takes, and who can demand appeasement and have the clout to get it.

A good dividing line might be whether a change in regime could be described as a coup or a revolution. A politically immature society would be susceptible to a dispassionate coup undertaken by a small group. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, perhaps Russia in October 1917. A politically mature society, by contrast, could not be overcome by a clique of military officers, and instead you would describe any violent upheaval more in terms of a revolution or civil war.

What does this have to do with Romulan society? I remain convinced that a society with the technological maturity of Romulus would have the political maturity as I have described it. A broad, interested, educated, invested elite, who would be aghast at the kind of coup Shinzon and Tal'Aura orchestrated, and who would be pliant only so long as a cloaked planet-destroyer remained in orbit above Romulus. Tal'Aura should have been strung up the moment Shinzon headed for Earth.

I dunno, that's just my take on it.

 

[Zatoichi]

After cruising through this thread and completing "A Singular Destiny," I've gotten newly interested in Donatra and the post-Nemesis Romulans. Are there a good set of books to explore if I want to read more about Donata?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

After cruising through this thread and completing "A Singular Destiny," I've gotten newly interested in Donatra and the post-Nemesis Romulans. Are there a good set of books to explore if I want to read more about Donata?

The first two books of the "Titan" series, "Taking Wing" and "The Red King" feature Donatra reasonably prominently, including her alliances with Will Riker and the U.S.S Titan, and insight into her character. "Death In Winter", which takes place shortly before "Taking Wing", establishes a few reasons why she feuds with Tal'aura.