when did TOS take place, 23rd century or 22nd century

Yes, of course it can be rationalized after the fact; you're basically paraphrasing the explanation I gave for it way back in my 2007 TNG novel The Buried Age. But my point is that it was a retroactive change in how the writers of the show portrayed the Federation. The fourth-season writers' decision to show the Federation as having been recently at war contrasted with Roddenberry's original intention to portray a peacetime Starfleet. Retcons are just part of any ongoing fiction series, because creators are constantly getting new ideas, and some of those new ideas are about the past.

 

Ouch. Good point. But very hurtful to Cardassian pride. Lol insignificant minor power. I don’t think picard would agree with that whenever he was held by the Cardassians. but they are no where near as powerful as Klingons or Romulan or the dominion

 

He does know how to bait a hook.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=def.....69i57j0l5.5615j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=ski....69i57j0l5.13935j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

A skirmish is a small scale type of action or engagement that happens during a state of war.

Therefore, by definition, the Cardassian War was not a skirmish.

"The Wounded" opens with:

Clearly the Cardassian War was a war, a long conflict lasting for years. As a border conflict it might have been a low intensity conflict. But by definition it was not a a single skirmish. One single "accidental" border skirmish could have been smoothed over with an apology, and a peace treaty would not have been needed.

But on the other hand the Cardassian War could have been a very minor border conflict from the point of view of the Federation as a whole.

From the Federation's point of view it might have been similar to Indian Wars in the American west.

Even the largest western Indian nations were outnumbered a thousand to one by Americans, and even all the western Indians together were still outnumbered hundreds to one by Americans. Most of the combats were fought by (19th century sized) companies or subdivisions of them, with examples of commands consisting of (19th century sized) regiments being exceptional, and commands consisting of (19th century sized) brigades were much rarer, and I have heard of only two commands consisting of (19th century sized) divisions. Forces of hostile Indians were in the same size range.

So for most Americans the Indian Wars meant nothing more than occasional newspaper headlines about exciting but far off events.

Similarly, the Roman empire at its height was thousands of times as large, as populous, and as powerful as many of the small states on its borders, so a border war with one of those small states on the border would be a minor event from the viewpoint of the empire as a whole.

And the border war with the Cardassians may have been on the same scale relative to the Federation. Except that such a theory makes it hard to see how the Cardassians could have been an important ally for the Dominion.

 

Their relative weakness is exactly what made them desirable "allies" for the Dominion. The Dominion didn't need their Alpha Quadrant allies to be strong, since they had enormous power of their own to wield. What they needed was a patsy. They needed a power weak and afraid enough to find an alliance with a stronger force appealing, so that the Dominion could get a foothold in the quadrant through them. And of course the Dominion always intended to conquer the Cardassians as soon as they'd served their purpose, so the last thing they wanted was for their patsies to be strong enough to fight back.

Remember, the Martok Changeling tricked Gowron into invading Cardassia, precisely so that Cardassia would be devastated and weakened and beleaguered, so that when they were up against the ropes and the Dominion came along and said "Here, sign this treaty and we'll make you strong again," the Cardassians would sign without reading the fine print, and then they'd be at the Dominion's mercy.

 

Forgotten, there is another reference to the people of the future using a different calendar. In ST IV, Kirk tells Gillian,

I am from what, on your calendar, would be the late twenty-third century.

Based on the evidence from the first show, and keeping to that show, I would have placed TOS in the latter half of the 22nd century.

 

Since the line in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" is basically a joke, the only real evidence we have is the "Space Seed" reference, which if taken as accurate would put the show around the late 2190s, with enough leeway to be at the very start of the 23rd century (the basis for the Spaceflight Chronology model). That and "Metamorphosis"'s data point of Cochrane disappearing in space 150 years earlier at age 87. Plus the other "Space Seed" date reference that sleeper ships were abandoned c. 2018 when faster propulsion was introduced. If you assume that was warp drive, and if you assume it was perfected at least, say, 25 years before Cochrane's disappearance (to give him time to travel to Alpha Centauri and settle there long enough to be considered "of" there), that would again put TOS in the 2190s at the earliest.

Still, judging from the references to the 23rd century in The Making of Star Trek and Blish's "Space Seed" adaptation, it seems likely that the creators of TOS had already settled on that century behind the scenes.

 

The Cardassian peace treaty was probably signed a long time after the actual hostilities had ended but their Government in not wanting to look weak refused to accept defeat and declaring it so I would assume until it looked better for them! So that conflict was over maybe a few years before TNG started which keeps that 'what a wonderful era we're living in at the moment' feeling that has been mentioned previously about the first episode!
JB

 

On the other hand, every Trek era has had this "best of times", "conflict is a thing of the past" thing going on. And we have always learned that there was conflict in the recent past, or even that there was ongoing conflict. TNG is perhaps the most remarkable in this respect, listing half a dozen adversaries of whom half have been inflicting casualties on the UFP quite recently - Cardassians, Talarians, Tholians.

It just seems that the UFP is always at war. Much like the Roman Empire, say. And likewise this war counts as peace for most people involved, as it takes place elsewhere and involves no homefronts to speak of. The bigger UFP of TNG just has even more wars than the earlier and smaller TOS one, so they have thicker skin and can declare more violent times a time of peace and prosperity.

Not that times of war would need to be less prosperous in Trek, mind you. We never heard of the homefront having it bad or the economy suffering from the Dominion War, say. Which is sort of odd if interstellar trade still plays a role in UFP economics, as a cloaked or ruthless enemy could always go hunting for cargo ships or convoys (and was shown doing exactly that in two wars in DS9, and pretending to do that in one TOS conflict).

Timo Saloniemi

 

I wonder how they keep an economy if they have done away with money?
JB

 

Well no debt!!!!!

 

If an economy must involve money transactions, and if the Federation has no money, then logically the Federation cannot have an economy. But if money transactions are not needed to have an economy, and/or if the Federation actually used some form of money more often than indicated, the Federation can have an economy.

I remember I found two online articles about the Federation economy that discussed it thoroughly. They had opposite opinions about it.

And i am not up for such a thorough discussion of the Federation economy, so your answer must come from someone else.

 

It's strange, same as their diamonds being beyond value in Arena and worthless in the second season!!!
JB

 

Well, in "Arena", Kirk is talking to himself, while in "Catspaw", he's talking to hostile aliens.

He might not be in a habit of lying to himself much, but he'd certainly be inclined to fool his enemies. And declaring their bribes as ineffective (while secretly drooling) would be a smart tactical move.

Not that making of jewels would sound like a major feat for a civilization that can make clothing appear out of thin air. But if there's one material thing the TOS heroes have a shortage of, it's crystals all right...

For the opposite tack, we can read Kirk as declaring the diamonds of "Arena" as worthless, too. They just happen to be an incredible fortune to him as far as stones go (literally "an incredible fortune in stones"), because all other local stones lack the sharpness and hardness that Kirk needs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

A barter economy doesn't use money. I think the Incas or someone like them had a non-monetary economy of some sort that European economists found baffling because it didn't fit their assumptions.

 

Are you referring to Catspaw? I always thought that was Kirk saying, we can't be bribed, take your junk away rather than them actually being worthless.

Although you could also say artificially created gems are worth less than natural gems, too. He did say they could manufacture them, they also would be not naturally created.

But I really think Kirk was giving him the two fingers.

 

But Kirk's an American. He'd give them the middle finger.

 

True, but I like that one better. They can both mean similar things but I always thought the middle finger is a general sign of displeasure with the other where the two fingers seems like displeasure and defiance. But that's just me. Plus when I do that no one knows what it means! If I started flipping the bird I'd be in trouble.

 

Surely that's open to my own interpretation? If I never rewatch any of the episodes afterwards and it doesn't reside on my shelf, which it doesn't, I'm making that determination for myself and not accepting it!
JB

 

Fans don't determine what's canon and what's not.