StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So last night the wife and I rewatched the two-part TNG episode Redemption (which I thought really held up well after 20 years). That episode reminded me of just how much outright fuckery the Romulans pulled on the Klingons. Off the top of my head there's their noted involvement in assassinating Chancellor Gorkon, the Khitomer massacre (when the Klingons and Romulans were supposedly allied), the destruction of Narendra 3, and their backing of the Duras sisters during the civil war.

Against the Federation the Romulans sneak around, using their usual guile and subterfuge to gain advantage, yet they never (seem to) resort to open conflict for fear of the Federation declaring war. But against the "bloodthirsty" Klingons the Romulans seemed to go to town every few years. Blow up a colony here or there, try and take out a Chancellor every now and then, etc. And the Klingons just seem to snarl and take it.

So my question: just where the hell was the all-out, actually justified Klingon Warrior rage-fueled war? They seem willing to enter into conflict with the Federation easily enough, but never the Romulans. Why? Was there a reason ever given for the lack of a decisive conflict between the two of them?

I assumed that there was just a better assured MAD scenario with the Romulans, which discouraged escalation.

With the Federation, the Klingons could easily assume that after a brief war they could be brought to negotiations. Take a few systems, blow up a fleet, then negotiate. With the Romulans, a similar move would likely leave Warbirds above Qo'noS.

Also we remember that Klingons get promoted as much due their dueling skills by challenging and killing the previous commander due to previced "dishonor", so it wouldn't be surprising if dispite their distaste for it Starfleet had better tactical and especially strategic skills then the Klingon forces, this could easily explain why Romulans go all out against the Klingons (easier to trick into ambushes or simply into strategically unfavorble positions), while a war with UFP could be seen as being of high risk to repeat the disaster of the Earth-Romulan war in the Romulan Senate.

I always assumed that the Romulan alliance hopping prevented the Klingons from invading, as war with them would lead to the Klingons risking a second front with the Federation, who seemed to have rather warm relations with the Romulans in the late 23rd century.

When the fuck did The Federation have warm relations with the RSE?

I've always operated under the assumption that there was a war between the two*, so this is actually news and interesting to me.

*I swore there was mention of it somewhere.

There was a war between Earth and Romulus, but that was before there was a Federation.

After that it was weird cold war hijinks.

I believe that the Federation/Romulan alliance/friendship is a result of the Romulan ambassador being present in the Presidents office during top secret military discussions during the Undiscovered Country.

According to Memory Alpha there was considerable conflict between the two including open battle, it just appears any wars that were fought were both inconclusive and fought off screen.

I briefly remember from Star Trek fact files (so take it with a pinch of salt) that they Klingons did go to war with the Romulans after the events surrounding the destruction of the Enterprise C. The Klingons won. But memory Alpha doesn't seem to have any reference to it. Only memory Beta does. Which means that references from it most probably derived from novels, gamebooks etc (because its memory Beta) and not from actual episodes (which is what memory Alpha covers).

In the last TNG episode, All Good Things, it's implied that the Klingon Empire controls part (or all?) of the territory in the Romulan Empire.

Panashe wrote:In the last TNG episode, All Good Things, it's implied that the Klingon Empire controls part (or all?) of the territory in the Romulan Empire.

if you mean the TNG finale, it can be safely ignored here as we won't know how much (if any) of it would really be possible and how much is just something Picard think would be possible (after all Q doesn't need to create a future that's really possible just one that Picard would belive is possible).

Its funny that in alternative time lines, the Klingons are bad ass. They engage in war with the UFP and are winning, and they conquered the Romulan star empire in another time line. Meanwhile in the main time line they picked on the much weaker Cardassian union, with some attacks into Federation territory at the same time. They "only" win against UFP forces which aren't run by Captain Sisko, and Klingon warriors get thrashed in HtH by a pregnant woman.

mr friendly guy wrote:Its funny that in alternative time lines, the Klingons are bad ass. They engage in war with the UFP and are winning, and they conquered the Romulan star empire in another time line. Meanwhile in the main time line they picked on the much weaker Cardassian union, with some attacks into Federation territory at the same time. They "only" win against UFP forces which aren't run by Captain Sisko, and Klingon warriors get thrashed in HtH by a pregnant woman.

The thing is, there really isn't a historical cannon in Star Trek anymore. They've destroyed that with the premise of parallel timelines all existing simultaneously, and able to be traveled to under the right circumstances - often under the guise of "time travel", but we've also seen parallel time sequenced universes with different histories.

Well the thing is you have to look at them through the butterfly effect. The life or death of a single key individual can be the difference between a major scientific breakthrough a generation ahead of its time, a civil war spawned or a people uniting behind a charismatic leader.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if incorporate it into your narrative as the NuTrek seems to have done. One of my favorite games ever is Crusader Kings 2, and I know several other people enjoy that and other series by Paradox. Its because of the massive differences you can see in timelines that can occur from seemingly small details. History may tend to follow along a similar course more often than not, but the smallest of changes in the timeline can result in major changes to how those timelines play out.

I know this is a bit straying away from the OP, but it always bugged me that the Klingons can't seem to recognize that they *need* good ships/weapons/intelligence in order to win wars. I get that they are supposed to be great in hand to hand combat, but I always just wanted to see some Romulans, simply gunning them down en masse during boarding activities, as a result of having no qualms about using "dishonorable tactics" like avoiding melee combat, etc.

Regardless, it still bugs me that you never see Klingons enthusiastically supporting their own technological advances - weren't they supposed to have given the Romulans warp drive, after all!

biostem wrote:I know this is a bit straying away from the OP, but it always bugged me that the Klingons can't seem to recognize that they *need* good ships/weapons/intelligence in order to win wars. I get that they are supposed to be great in hand to hand combat, but I always just wanted to see some Romulans, simply gunning them down en masse during boarding activities, as a result of having no qualms about using "dishonorable tactics" like avoiding melee combat, etc.

Regardless, it still bugs me that you never see Klingons enthusiastically supporting their own technological advances - weren't they supposed to have given the Romulans warp drive, after all!

According to I think Enterprise they used to be a pretty cultured people, warrior culture was important because Kahless but their was societal balance. Then something changed to the point everything was warriors this, honor that, with scientists and everyone else seen as lesser.

I'm not sure if their was any explanation for this or not.

It's from the second season episode of Enterprise titled 'Judgement':

"You didn't believe all Klingons were soldiers?"
"I guess I did."
"My father was a teacher. My mother, a biologist at the university. They encouraged me to take up the law. Now, all young people want to do is to take up weapons as soon as they can hold them. They're told there is honor in victory – any victory. What honor is there in a victory over a weaker opponent? Had Duras destroyed that ship, he would have been lauded as a hero of the Empire for murdering helpless refugees. We were a great society, not so long ago. When honor was earned through integrity and acts of true courage, not senseless bloodshed."
"For thousands of years, my people had similar problems. We fought three world wars that almost destroyed us. Whole generations were nearly wiped out."
"What changed?"
"A few courageous people began to realize... they could make a difference."

- Kolos and Archer

That's really no different than militarism which can appear and disappear within a generation here on Earth. And militarism doesn't mean there are not scientists, only that they generally narrow their work to suit the specific needs of militarism which can be anything depending on the circumstances that it exists in. You can say that means overall less effective science, but that does not mean no science.

biostem wrote:I know this is a bit straying away from the OP, but it always bugged me that the Klingons can't seem to recognize that they *need* good ships/weapons/intelligence in order to win wars. I get that they are supposed to be great in hand to hand combat, but I always just wanted to see some Romulans, simply gunning them down en masse during boarding activities, as a result of having no qualms about using "dishonorable tactics" like avoiding melee combat, etc.

My take on it is that they're the interstellar equivalent of Imperial Japan. They can more or less keep up with the neighbors as long as they don't get smacked too hard by the overwhelming military-industrial strength of a larger opponent. And while technologically behind, they can achieve surprising things with a combination of resilience, determination, and a handful of very cunning and resourceful leaders who happen to also be well established in the Klingon honor system.

biostem wrote:I know this is a bit straying away from the OP, but it always bugged me that the Klingons can't seem to recognize that they *need* good ships/weapons/intelligence in order to win wars. I get that they are supposed to be great in hand to hand combat, but I always just wanted to see some Romulans, simply gunning them down en masse during boarding activities, as a result of having no qualms about using "dishonorable tactics" like avoiding melee combat, etc.

Regardless, it still bugs me that you never see Klingons enthusiastically supporting their own technological advances - weren't they supposed to have given the Romulans warp drive, after all!

They traded some of their warp-capable D7s for Romulan cloaking tech.

Memory Alpha has some very interesting information on this. Suffice to say, "erratic" doesn't begin to cover their history: Link.

What has always bugged me is how the fuck the House of Duras has any standing in the High Council. They're the ST equivalent of Slytherin House- just about every dishonorable individual and action over the decades has been attributable to them. But then again, the Klingon perception of what counts as honorable has always been hypocritical...

EnterpriseSovereign wrote:What has always bugged me is how the fuck the House of Duras has any standing in the High Council. They're the ST equivalent of Slytherin House- just about every dishonorable individual and action over the decades has been attributable to them. But then again, the Klingon perception of what counts as honorable has always been hypocritical...

The way I've always understood Klingon politics is this: Each house operates semi-autonomously, with the High Council serving as the place where they all discuss issues and, if needed, push resolutions as a whole. It's more a confederation than any actual empire, since each house seems to be capable of operating independently. I think this explains how the House of Duras seems capable of pushing so much, it's because they're one of the biggest houses on the block. They have power and authority that rivals the Chancellor himself, and they're not afraid to wield it. Such brazen acts to take charge and command no doubt strike a cord with many of the young firebloods who want to follow a strong leader.

Plus, while it may not be quite as acceptable as most Klingons would want to believe, deception and trickery are something to be admired. It shows cunning and thinking on both a tactical and strategic level. Any commander who can assure victory is a great leader, even if such a victory may not be a straight up fight. In the mind of most Klingons, Victory = Honor. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Klingon political system is semi-feudal in nature, the high council is in essence a collection of the most powerful vassals of the non-existant emperor, with the head of the high council wielding the polical power the monarch would wield in "true" feudal system.

so aproval of the high council matters, but a powerful house might be able to force the council to let them go their way.

Also we must remember that we have a "god's eye view" when it comes to certain things in ST, just cause we know that the House of Duras has no honor it doesn't mean your typical Klingon house would know the same and it was made clear in TNG that House of Duras has allies inside the empire as well outside. So while individually they don't have the same power as the Chancellor Duras+allies do.

And when it comes to dishonor it seems that it's more about not getting caught for most klingons instead of doing "dishonorble" actions. basically it's ok to stab your enemies in the back as long no-one can prove that you did it (metaphorically speaking).

Never occurred to me to think of the Klingon system as being feudal, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense now. It would also explain why they fight amongst themselves so much from time to time, since damaging another house would be akin to a duke or earl taking on his rival as a show of 'honor'.

No wonder the Klingons are backwards. There's no social mobility hardly.

It does appear as though unless you make a name for yourself by individual feats of strength, you don't really have much choice but to stay where you are... or get bumped downwards. If you're born at the top, you have to stay there by main force, hence the rough command style.