Which Romulan "history" are we to follow now?

[Sci]

For the general continuity hawks, Friedman has his own set of Earth political leaders, not related to those of preceding novels/fanfic/RPG nor later referenced in the ENT RW books. But we can argue that the Friedman "President Littlejohn of the United Earth" could exist in parallel with the ENT "Prime Minister Samuels of the UE" - plenty of governments today have both a President and a Prime Minister at the top of the executive power structure.

FWIW, in my native Finland, we used to have a powerful executive President like the US or French ones, with a puppet Prime Minister, but once we got rid of an annoying president-for-almost-life who really overstayed his welcome, everybody agreed on gradually stripping the President of his or her powers until we've reached a situation where the President is ceremonial (much as in, say, Germany or Switzerland) and the Prime Minister holds the executive power under strong parliamentary control (in the classic British fashion). The next logical step would be to drop the President concept altogether - which may have happened to United Earth after the Romulan War.

Or then the UE retains the President position, but it's symbolic and ignored and unrelated to the decisionmaking that takes place in the novels dealing with Earth.

For the record, the most recent ENT novel, The Romulan War: To Brave the Storm, features United Earth President Lydia Littlejohn alongside United Earth Prime Minister Nathan Samuels. Given that the Prime Minister has been depicted as the real leader of United Earth throughout the war, it's pretty clear that United Earth has a system like Finland's, Germany's, Ireland's, etc. -- a mostly ceremonial President and a Prime Minister that does the actual leading of the state. There's also a sequence where the United Earth Parliament is depicted as making an important decision that the Prime Minister must adhere to, so there's the implication that it's a PM who serves with Parliament's confidence.

Or, even, the UE President position is blended into the UFP President one, depriving Earth of a "true" head of state but OTOH giving it symbolic access to the very highest seat of power (which would in turn fit well with what we see in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost").

I find that concept both horrifying and unnecessary. First off, nothing in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" in any way contradicts the idea of United Earth continuing to have its own government and its own President. Two, what you're describing would mean that United Earth would be denied its own government and its own ability to run its internal affairs -- a situation equivalent to that of the District of Columbia in the United States, which has historically alternated from being denied its own government at all (instead being governed by a Congressional committee no one actually wanted to serve on) to having a local government whose decisions Congress can override at whim. Given how undemocratic and oppressive that situation is, I can't imagine an enlightened Federation would endorse it.

In any event, several novels and short stories, including "Eleven Hours Out" from Tales of the Dominion War, have established that the United Earth government continues to exist into the 2370s, with the United Earth Prime Minister joining the Federation President and President of the United States of America in touring the Breen-ravaged San Francisco after their attack.

What else is "wrong" about the Friedman book?

The main incompatibilities in the Friedman novel are as follows:

- Its depiction of Earth technology as being much less advanced than ENT canonically established it to be
- Its depiction of there being no United Earth Starfleet
- Its depiction of T'Pau as already being an aged and well-respected Vulcan leader, rather than a relatively young recent revolutionary
- Its depiction of the Daedalus-class as being a new kind of starship; the ENT novels make it clear that the Daedalus-class is already a bit older as of 2156
- Its depiction of the number of the Federation's founding worlds is much more expansive than what the ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels have established (that the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri)

 

[Timo]

- Its depiction of Earth technology as being much less advanced than ENT canonically established it to be

Umm, I'm not sure I agree. Friedman has transporters as a matter of course - more rather than less advanced, really. Friedman also has one-man warp fightercraft, which is better than the ENT Earth can do. And while his starships use missiles and lasers, it may be that he's describing ships built for a different mission (the Christophers are shown attacking planetary targets) - or, since his fighting scenes take place towards the end of the war, it will turn out that phasers aren't useful against Romulans after all, and lasers are adopted in their stead in the late 2150s.

- Its depiction of there being no United Earth Starfleet

We might argue that there was no Starfleet for much of TOS, either. Perhaps Friedman's heroes just don't talk all that much about their employer?

- Its depiction of T'Pau as already being an aged and well-respected Vulcan leader, rather than a relatively young recent revolutionary

That's pretty clear-cut, yes. Unless we assume T'Pau was under a lot of stress in the late 2150s and aged as rapidly as Spock did.

- Its depiction of the Daedalus-class as being a new kind of starship; the ENT novels make it clear that the Daedalus-class is already a bit older as of 2156

To be sure, Friedman never says the Daedalus would be new. He just says the ship is being designed. Which may happen to old ships, too...

- Its depiction of the number of the Federation's founding worlds is much more expansive than what the ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels have established (that the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri)

Might be Friedman is more inclusive in describing the "real" founders, while the novels accept the propaganda of the five who insist they are the only founders of actual significance... No different from WWII Allies being defined as UK, US and USSR alone when the alliance formally and in practice included e.g. Norway, China, Ethiopia and Brazil.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

Give it up, Timo. When the book starts with "The events of Starfleet: Year One are unrelated to the television series Enterprise", they don't fit.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Its depiction of the number of the Federation's founding worlds is much more expansive than what the ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels have established (that the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri)

I thought I remembered that MJF only adds the Rigel Colonies to the mix, and this is something mentioned elsewhere (either the Goldstein's "Spaceflight Chronology" for Simon & Schuster, or the "Introduction to Navigation" booklet accompanying Bantam's "Star Trek Maps"), that the Rigel Colonies originally abstained from joining.

That "the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri" actually dates back to much earlier than "ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels". The five star systems were mentioned as founders in "Starfleet Technical Manual" and those systems were matched up to Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri in "Starfleet Medical Reference Manual".

 

[Sci]

- Its depiction of there being no United Earth Starfleet

We might argue that there was no Starfleet for much of TOS, either. Perhaps Friedman's heroes just don't talk all that much about their employer?

I think that's a bit of a stretch. The United Earth Starfleet just doesn't exist in Friedman's world, that's all; the agency that operates in Earth's defense is called Earth Command, not the United Earth Starfleet.

- Its depiction of T'Pau as already being an aged and well-respected Vulcan leader, rather than a relatively young recent revolutionary

That's pretty clear-cut, yes. Unless we assume T'Pau was under a lot of stress in the late 2150s and aged as rapidly as Spock did.

If we were to try to reconcile the two, it would probably be simpler to assume that the T'Pau of Starfleet: Year One is a different person with the same name.

- Its depiction of the Daedalus-class as being a new kind of starship; the ENT novels make it clear that the Daedalus-class is already a bit older as of 2156

To be sure, Friedman never says the Daedalus would be new. He just says the ship is being designed. Which may happen to old ships, too...

From the back cover copy: "A powerful new class of starship, the Daedalus, flagship of the new Federation fleet, is up for grabs among the six new Starfleet captains." I really don't think there's a way to reconcile this, unless we go the T'Pau route of, "Different thing, same name."

- Its depiction of the number of the Federation's founding worlds is much more expansive than what the ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels have established (that the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri)

Might be Friedman is more inclusive in describing the "real" founders, while the novels accept the propaganda of the five who insist they are the only founders of actual significance...

Nope. The novels are very clear and there's no room for ambiguity. In Friedman's book, several different races founded the Federation; in the continuity shared by Articles of the Federation, The Romulan War: To Brave the Storm, and most modern novels, the Federation was founded by Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri, and only Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri.

Its depiction of the number of the Federation's founding worlds is much more expansive than what the ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels have established (that the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri)

I thought I remembered that MJF only adds the Rigel Colonies to the mix, and this is something mentioned elsewhere (either the Goldstein's "Spaceflight Chronology" for Simon & Schuster, or the "Introduction to Navigation" booklet accompanying Bantam's "Star Trek Maps"), that the Rigel Colonies originally abstained from joining.

I don't have my copy with me -- it's with other old books back in Ohio -- but I remember there being at least two other worlds founding the UFP in MJF's book.

That "the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri" actually dates back to much earlier than "ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels". The five star systems were mentioned as founders in "Starfleet Technical Manual" and those systems were matched up to Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri in "Starfleet Medical Reference Manual".

I'm aware, but most of those aren't in continuity with the modern novels. I'm using the "Destiny-verse novels," and only going by what they establish, because they're the ones that the topic at hand is about -- "Why is Starfleet: Year One incompatible with the modern novels?"

 

[Timo]

the agency that operates in Earth's defense is called Earth Command, not the United Earth Starfleet.

However, that's what the organization's employees would interact with - the Command of the UESF. Just because we have movie references to "Pentagon" defending the United States doesn't mean that "US Army" flickers on and off the reality of those movies...

As pointed out, we already have to use reasoning of this sort to cope with the lack of UFP Starfleet or indeed UFP itself from early TOS. And it's not awfully forced reasoning, either: why, I can spend whole months not using the expression "Republic of Finland" despite discussing the way my country is run!

From the back cover copy

But back covers are no more part of the Trek universe than front covers are. Or titles or credits in the episodes, for that matter. Or "Making of" books. We don't get the impression from the story itself that the Daedalus would be a powerful flagship; the heroes seem to prefer their heritage Christophers in those respects.

The novels are very clear and there's no room for ambiguity.

But there always is. Omissions and lacunae are retroactive: later twists in the story can always add details, at which point their absence from the original work becomes an omission, but not necessarily a contradiction. Later developments aren't likely to successfully remove a detail, though, not without lots of extra work.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

the agency that operates in Earth's defense is called Earth Command, not the United Earth Starfleet.

However, that's what the organization's employees would interact with - the Command of the UESF. Just because we have movie references to "Pentagon" defending the United States doesn't mean that "US Army" flickers on and off the reality of those movies...

As pointed out, we already have to use reasoning of this sort to cope with the lack of UFP Starfleet or indeed UFP itself from early TOS. And it's not awfully forced reasoning, either: why, I can spend whole months not using the expression "Republic of Finland" despite discussing the way my country is run!

From the back cover copy

But back covers are no more part of the Trek universe than front covers are. Or titles or credits in the episodes, for that matter. Or "Making of" books. We don't get the impression from the story itself that the Daedalus would be a powerful flagship; the heroes seem to prefer their heritage Christophers in those respects.

Timo Saloniemi

It's been a long time since I read Starfleet: Year One, but I distinctly remember the Daedalus class being described as a new class of ship.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

- Its depiction of there being no United Earth Starfleet

We might argue that there was no Starfleet for much of TOS, either. Perhaps Friedman's heroes just don't talk all that much about their employer?

I think that's a bit of a stretch. The United Earth Starfleet just doesn't exist in Friedman's world, that's all; the agency that operates in Earth's defense is called Earth Command, not the United Earth Starfleet.



If we were to try to reconcile the two, it would probably be simpler to assume that the T'Pau of Starfleet: Year One is a different person with the same name.



From the back cover copy: "A powerful new class of starship, the Daedalus, flagship of the new Federation fleet, is up for grabs among the six new Starfleet captains." I really don't think there's a way to reconcile this, unless we go the T'Pau route of, "Different thing, same name."



Nope. The novels are very clear and there's no room for ambiguity. In Friedman's book, several different races founded the Federation; in the continuity shared by Articles of the Federation, The Romulan War: To Brave the Storm, and most modern novels, the Federation was founded by Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri, and only Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri.

I thought I remembered that MJF only adds the Rigel Colonies to the mix, and this is something mentioned elsewhere (either the Goldstein's "Spaceflight Chronology" for Simon & Schuster, or the "Introduction to Navigation" booklet accompanying Bantam's "Star Trek Maps"), that the Rigel Colonies originally abstained from joining.

I don't have my copy with me -- it's with other old books back in Ohio -- but I remember there being at least two other worlds founding the UFP in MJF's book.

That "the UFP was founded only by the states of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri" actually dates back to much earlier than "ENT novels and the other modern TrekLit novels". The five star systems were mentioned as founders in "Starfleet Technical Manual" and those systems were matched up to Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri in "Starfleet Medical Reference Manual".

I'm aware, but most of those aren't in continuity with the modern novels. I'm using the "Destiny-verse novels," and only going by what they establish, because they're the ones that the topic at hand is about -- "Why is Starfleet: Year One incompatible with the modern novels?"

Plus Starfleet Year One had ships that maxed out at Warp 2 with the Daedalus being capable of Warp 3, while the NX-class was cruising around at at least warp 4.

 

[Timo]

...And couldn't talk with each other while at warp. Although this oddity could be easily explained as mere wartime radio silence. And not every ship need be as fast as the Enterprise, nor is there any obvious reason to insist that Daedalus ought to be faster than described. Especially if it's an older ship type being converted to civilian work at the war's end.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

...And couldn't talk with each other while at warp. Although this oddity could be easily explained as mere wartime radio silence. And not every ship need be as fast as the Enterprise, nor is there any obvious reason to insist that Daedalus ought to be faster than described. Especially if it's an older ship type being converted to civilian work at the war's end.

There's a huge difference between saying that there is a physical incapacity to do something in the whole of your society and saying you're not allowed to do it because of wartime regs.

Sorry, but Starfleet: Year One is just incompatible with modern books' continuity. Doesn't make it bad, just different.

 

[Timo]

There's a huge difference between saying that there is a physical incapacity to do something in the whole of your society and saying you're not allowed to do it because of wartime regs.

Perhaps. But Friedman doesn't say that the society is physically incapable of talking at warp. He merely shows our heroes not talking when they warp towards their goal. He's not making a fuss of it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's been a long time since I read Starfleet: Year One, but I distinctly remember the Daedalus class being described as a new class of ship.

You're right, that is exactly what happened.

And it would be impossible for 'Earth Command' to simply be a short or slang form of the high command at Earth Starfleet. Earth Command is described as being pure military in form and function (even its black-and-yellow uniforms are laid out in detail), which obviously cannot apply to Earth Starfleet.

I mean, I can understand why the term 'Earth Command' might be interpreted as a short form of UESF - harkens back to the early days of TOS where we got many different terms for the Enterprise's operating authority, such as Space Command, Star Service, UESPA, etc. But the actual structure and mission of Earth Command in SF Year One has been mentioned - it was a purely military organization, entirely incompatible with the Earth Starfleet we see on the show.

 

[Timo]

How so? The UESF of ENT is a purely military organization, too - its first and only exploration vessel is NX-01, and even that ship has to give up exploration for Season Three. And the War supposedly begins soon after Season Four; whether UESF would have enough exploration-trained personnel to crew even one starship at that point is quite debatable.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Eh? Earth Starfleet is a completely NON-military organization. We learned this in the scene in "The Expanse" where Archer and Forrest discuss MACO troops - Forrest asks if Archer is comfortable with having the military onboard, and Archer replies that he has no problem with non-Starfleet personnel.

The Federation Starfleet contains the functions of the military (it isn't PURE military, but that is one of its areas of responsibility); Earth Starfleet is completely non-military.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm aware, but most of those aren't in continuity with the modern novels.

My point was, though: on the topic of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri being the five founding races, the old manuals are in synch with modern stuff.

 

[Sci]

I'm aware, but most of those aren't in continuity with the modern novels.

My point was, though: on the topic of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri being the five founding races, the old manuals are in synch with modern stuff.

Or at least they are on that particular plot point. On the other hand, the Earth state is not called "the United Nations of Earth," nor is the Vulcan state called the "Planetary Confederation of Episilon Indii" or what-have-you, and Federation Starfleet Headquarters isn't a space station -- so, not exactly in continuity, no.

 

[Timo]

The Federation Starfleet contains the functions of the military (it isn't PURE military, but that is one of its areas of responsibility); Earth Starfleet is completely non-military.

Er, nope. The Earth Starfleet of ENT explicitly contains the functions and insignia of the military, too: the heavily armed warships, the job of defending Earth and its assets from foreign forces, the occasional foray into domestic order-keeping, the familiar organizational hierarchy. So the explanation for Archer not having "the military" aboard unless the MACO are there must be sought elsewhere.

1) The ENT organization does dabble in exploration - inexpertly, with a novice team. We could argue that Archer is its only non-military commander, and that he might hate losing that special status and becoming a regular military commander in "The Expanse", which is why Admiral Forrest expresses polite concern.

2) The ENT organization appears to be the spatial equivalent of the navy, while the Military Assault Command is seen performing duties similar to those of the US Marine Corps of old: "amphibious" operations, shipboard security, embassy protection. Our dialogue could represent simple classic interservices rivalry, then. Surely any skipper with a heavily armed security, boarding and landing team of his own would have the right to feel insulted when an outside team came aboard to perform those jobs. (Except Archer of course isn't that petty.)

"Military", after all, is a word that for the greatest part of its existence has specifically referred to land armies, and even more specifically has been used to distinguish those from navies...

Whatever the rationalization, this little bit of dialogue is in contradiction with everything shown in the series itself. In turn, the series is in concord with Friedman's take in this respect at least... Archer is one of those loathed "butterfly catcher" types, and quite possibly the first and only one to boot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Therin of Andor]

nor is the Vulcan state called the "Planetary Confederation of Episilon Indii"

No, that was Andor, not Vulcan.