On the contrary, that's your interpretation of the evidence. It is obviously not the only possible interpretation, seeing as how almost everyone else interprets it to refer to the TOS era alliance, as well as a later second alliance (note that Worf's statement does not preclude there having been more than one previous alliance).
It doesn't matter how everybody else interprets it as they aren't interpreting the evidence, they're reciting the common non-canon statements from decades of books and comics and whatnot.
No. Someone interpreted the evidence in that manner, which resulted in the decades of books and comics and whatnot. The evidence does not support your interpretation more than it supports ours (and in fact, I argue that ours has more support), but the fact is that both are interpretations, and you don't get to dismiss the one you dislike simply because you interpreted the evidence differently (and based in part, I might add, on LATER developments; the "hatred" of Klingons for Romulans developed AFTER the Khitomer Massacre, not before; indeed, the very fact of an alliance existing between the two up to that event is itself evidence that the Klingons did not hate the Romulans at the time).
That is certainly true. However, let me offer an analogy from my own field (or more precisely, the milieu in which my field generally exists).
Academia is notoriously conservative. Academia is also notoriously subject to radical alteration. These are especially true in the field of Archaeology (not my field, but one in which I have considerable interest), which is a science, but one which involves extensive interpretation of the evidence, and indeed, requires such interpretation due to the nature of the beast. The reasons for these things are, I believe, relevant here. Academia involves a concept of "orthodoxy." Received wisdom within academic fields becomes ensconced to such an extent that some academics will categorically reject any challenges by appeal to the received wisdom itself (which is at least sometimes an example of the Petitio Principii fallacy, but in other cases is an appeal to coherence and consistency). Nevertheless, newcomers can and do find evidence which was previously overlooked or ignored, and which may be worthy of consideration (for example, to return to the field of Archaeology, received wisdom presently still insists that all examples of so-called "Bog People" are "evidence of human sacrifice," and yet, since the dawn of this millennium, scholars have begun to point to a passage in Tacitus' "Germania" which contains the only contemporary account of anything similar and asserts that the practice was a form of capital punishment, while other scholars have begun to question some of the interpretations of the evidence like the view that Lindow Man was garroted -- suggesting instead that Lindow Man had worn a leather neckcord which, in the mud of the bog, shrank/tightened around his neck). Newcomers may also, however, simply be young upstart hotshots trying to make a name for themselves by finding a weak point to tear at, without any evidential basis for tearing at it. So there are both good and bad reasons for both perspectives.
The point to this is that the alliance is part of the "received wisdom" of Trekkers as a community. This "orthodoxy" may need to be challenged, but you have given no reason(s) to consider your interpretation of the evidence any more practical or likely than the interpretation favored by current "received wisdom."
As someone who's field is archaeology I see no flaws in the argument except for the fact it doesn't apply here. This is not different interpretations of the same evidence, this is different sets of evidence (canon and non-canon) and people desperately trying to twist either into their already preconceived supposition.
On the contrary, the soft canon material was based on an interpretation of the evidence. That interpretation did not derive from soft canon, but quite the opposite.
That's all fine except for one point: your assumption that there was only one previous alliance. There's nothing in canon which says there was only one alliance.
The alliance is separate from Romulans having D7s in TOS how?
You are correct however it is clear from established characterisation that the Romulans and Klingons are enemies and alliance at all is a miracle.
Established characterization which was first presented in TNG, and not before.
The reason I separate them is because the fact that the two powers have allied in the past is beyond question. There is however no evidence to support them having traded so much as insults never mind ships and cloaks.
Riker refers to a past alliance, we have evidence of one singular alliance. Either speculation (prior alliances or none) is still speculation, but even if you have proof of another one it doesn't provide evidence for the specific one you're proposing.
Riker alludes to previous alliance (not "a" previous alliance) in his exclamation "A new Klingon alliance with the Romulans!?" That is not a reference to a past alliance, but an allusion to the notion that the two powers had allied in the past; nothing in that indicates or even suggests the number of times they had allied previously, apart from the implication that they had done so at least once in the past.
Let's just have a look at some evidence you have not previously mentioned ...
Previous Romulan designation was shown only by the large raptor on the bottom of the T'liss in BoT.
Why would the Romulans, after well over a century of using birds-of-prey as their symbol, suddenly start using something which looks very much like a Klingon logo -- a logo, it should be noted, which they only used during this time period at which they were also using D7s?
That's better, actual evidence.
Interesting, well the most obvious answer is that the Raptor didn't exist BtS yet, but in universe it could just be another Klingon symbol, it's on the inside of the D7 not the outside, for all we know it could be the Klingon symbol for armoury. If it appears on the T'liss let me know. It's interesting but not conclusive of anything.
BoT was made before TEI. BoT was a first season episode; TEI was a third season episode. Obviously, the Raptor existed prior to TEI. The logo appears in several places inside the Memenda. And of course it in itself is not a conclusion, but it is certainly evidence, and it's inside a Romulan ship, not a Klingon ship. It's also shoddily placed, which was likely due to hasty placement for the show, but in-universe could be explained as having been put up to cover another logo. It's more than interesting, though. But I have had a feeling for some time that no matter what evidence is presented, you will dismiss it in favor of your own interpretation. It is a form of Confirmation Bias.
No, your assertion that the evidence does not apply to the TOS era is assumption. And the imagery I have included in the links above, along with my comments about it, is also evidence -- evidence which, it should be noted, you have not posted. Have fun trying to explain that away.
Yes it is assumption, that there was only one, this assumption is based on dialogue and characterisation, yours (that there was more than one) is based upon a logo. If that's your personal standard of evidence, by all means, go ahead.
Now you're trying to attack a Straw Man. Your assumption is no more based on characterization and dialogue than mine, except insofar as you are engaging in anachronism with regard to characterization. There is in fact NO characterization of so much as moderate dislike between the two species prior to TNG, and projecting that 24th century attitude back onto the people of the 23rd century without any evidence is 1. anachronism, and 2. unwarranted assumption ("Never is plurality placed without necessity," yet here you are, assuming that the attitudes of 24th century Klingons toward Romulans were the attitudes of 23rd century Klingons toward Romulans, and without the slightest bit of evidence to support that -- indeed, with hard canon indicating that the two people had had at least one alliance in the past, and Worf speaking of a time when the Romulans betrayed the Klingons "at a time when they were supposed to be our allies," an act of betrayal which is far more reasonable to assume was the cause of the later hatred!).
The simplest explanation IS that Romulans and Klingons had an alliance, trading technology for ships. Dancing around the edges just to avoid making that leap, while not wrong, is the more complex route.
No it isn't. It requires to many compromises with the established characters of both the Klingons and the Romulans. It's only ever brought up because people already believe it, so it's not the most simple at all it's just simple to accept it.
Again, incorrect. Your supposed "established characters" were not established before TNG, an event is referred to twice, once by Riker and once by Worf, in which the two were allied in the past, one of the references is to a betrayal, which is, if you like that incorrect rendering of Ockham's Razor, the simplest and smallest number of assumptions, in that it involves more of the only evidence you say you will accept. The Romulans and Klingons were fine with each other in TOS; they had an alliance in the 2260s, they had another alliance later, in the 2340s (possibly beginning in the 2330s, but we have no evidence of when it began nor how long it lasted), destroyed when Praetor Dralath ordered the betrayal in 2344 at Narendra-III and Khitomer in 2346. The only things in that which come from soft canon are the name "Dralath," and the idea that he ordered the betrayal, although some of that contains the common interpretation that the two powers had an alliance in the 2260s, which interpretation went into soft canon.
No. Someone interpreted the evidence in that manner, which resulted in the decades of books and comics and whatnot. The evidence does not support your interpretation more than it supports ours (and in fact, I argue that ours has more support), but the fact is that both are interpretations, and you don't get to dismiss the one you dislike simply because you interpreted the evidence differently (and based in part, I might add, on LATER developments; the "hatred" of Klingons for Romulans developed AFTER the Khitomer Massacre, not before; indeed, the very fact of an alliance existing between the two up to that event is itself evidence that the Klingons did not hate the Romulans at the time).
Whether the hatred developed before or after Kitomer is immaterial the two powers relate to each other as TRIBBLE Germany and the USSR, true this is based upon evidence from TNG and DS9, but the nature of their Empires has not changed since the ENT era.
On the contrary, the soft canon material was based on an interpretation of the evidence. That interpretation did not derive from soft canon, but quite the opposite.
It was not. The non-canon explanation of an alliance was a means to explain away the use of the D7 model (established as a Klingon design) by the Romulans. There is no evidence of an alliance existing that lead a writer to say, 'lets give the Romulans some D7s in this episode, after all they're allied with the Klingons'.
Riker alludes to previous alliance (not "a" previous alliance) in his exclamation "A new Klingon alliance with the Romulans!?" That is not a reference to a past alliance, but an allusion to the notion that the two powers had allied in the past; nothing in that indicates or even suggests the number of times they had allied previously, apart from the implication that they had done so at least once in the past.
Yes. It also doesn't support your theory that it was more than once. It's easy for me to conclude it means one time, but it's equally as easy for you to conclude it means more than once to back up you non-canon sources.
BoT was made before TEI. BoT was a first season episode; TEI was a third season episode. Obviously, the Raptor existed prior to TEI. The logo appears in several places inside the Memenda. And of course it in itself is not a conclusion, but it is certainly evidence, and it's inside a Romulan ship, not a Klingon ship. It's also shoddily placed, which was likely due to hasty placement for the show, but in-universe could be explained as having been put up to cover another logo. It's more than interesting, though. But I have had a feeling for some time that no matter what evidence is presented, you will dismiss it in favor of your own interpretation. It is a form of Confirmation Bias.
I just looked up Memenda, it's the Commanders D7, in that case the hexagonal emblem could be a Klingon emblem, not a Romulan one. You can hardly talk about confirmation bias here. The colours and shape of the logo are similar to the then current Klingon logo, there is nothing to suggest it isn't a variation of that.
Now you're trying to attack a Straw Man. Your assumption is no more based on characterization and dialogue than mine, except insofar as you are engaging in anachronism with regard to characterization. There is in fact NO characterization of so much as moderate dislike between the two species prior to TNG, and projecting that 24th century attitude back onto the people of the 23rd century without any evidence is 1. anachronism, and 2. unwarranted assumption ("Never is plurality placed without necessity," yet here you are, assuming that the attitudes of 24th century Klingons toward Romulans were the attitudes of 23rd century Klingons toward Romulans, and without the slightest bit of evidence to support that -- indeed, with hard canon indicating that the two people had had at least one alliance in the past, and Worf speaking of a time when the Romulans betrayed the Klingons "at a time when they were supposed to be our allies," an act of betrayal which is far more reasonable to assume was the cause of the later hatred!).
Except the ENT versions of both powers is the same as their later portrayal, and again, with the exception of the Commander, the TOS Romulans are not really that different from the DS9 Romulans. This is ST not real life, using established 'hats' instead of characters is all the writers need. I see little difference in the attitudes of Kor and Martok or the Commander from TEI and Creeteek.
Again, incorrect. Your supposed "established characters" were not established before TNG, an event is referred to twice, once by Riker and once by Worf, in which the two were allied in the past, one of the references is to a betrayal, which is, if you like that incorrect rendering of Ockham's Razor, the simplest and smallest number of assumptions, in that it involves more of the only evidence you say you will accept. The Romulans and Klingons were fine with each other in TOS; they had an alliance in the 2260s, they had another alliance later, in the 2340s (possibly beginning in the 2330s, but we have no evidence of when it began nor how long it lasted), destroyed when Praetor Dralath ordered the betrayal in 2344 at Narendra-III and Khitomer in 2346. The only things in that which come from soft canon are the name "Dralath," and the idea that he ordered the betrayal, although some of that contains the common interpretation that the two powers had an alliance in the 2260s, which interpretation went into soft canon.
No. Even if there were evidence to a TOS era alliance there would be completely different terms to the non-canon version, a trade between D7s and violation of the Romulan side of the border for instance. There is no reason to assume any canon evidence of a TOS era alliance would point to the non-canon fully formed D7 for cloak alliance with all the particulars you mentioned.
Again it would be the equivalent of TRIBBLE Germany trading the nuke to the USSR for jet planes. Even if the USSR could't build their own nukes they can now, you've given them the ability to reverse engineer them and improve them. What do the TRIBBLE get in return? A fast plane. That's even ignoring the fact that, unlike the USSR, the Klingon could have got cloaks from at least two other sources (so could get nukes without giving up jets) And the Romulans surely have other places that can get faster ships without having to give up cloaks.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
No. Someone interpreted the evidence in that manner, which resulted in the decades of books and comics and whatnot. The evidence does not support your interpretation more than it supports ours (and in fact, I argue that ours has more support), but the fact is that both are interpretations, and you don't get to dismiss the one you dislike simply because you interpreted the evidence differently (and based in part, I might add, on LATER developments; the "hatred" of Klingons for Romulans developed AFTER the Khitomer Massacre, not before; indeed, the very fact of an alliance existing between the two up to that event is itself evidence that the Klingons did not hate the Romulans at the time).
Whether the hatred developed before or after Kitomer is immaterial
It absolutely is not. You made a claim. I pointed out the flaw. Now you're moving the goalposts.
the two powers relate to each other as TRIBBLE Germany and the USSR, true this is based upon evidence from TNG and DS9, but the nature of their Empires has not changed since the ENT era.
Yes, based on evidence from TNG and DS9, and not supported in any way whatsoever by anything before that.
And yes, they have changed both very significantly from the TOS/TAS era. Back then, the Romulans were the honorable warriors, the Klingons were cutthroat pirates when they were being particularly nasty, or Cossacks when they were being kind of nice. Back then, the Romulans had a salute which was, like many other Romulan characteristics, stolen from the Romulans by the makers of TNG and given to the Klingons, although the Klingons only got the first part of it. Back then, Klingons were the ones sneaking around and disguising themselves to stir trouble in Federation space, something which TNG decided to apply to Romulans instead. The list can go on indefinitely. I find it astounding that you claim that the nature of their empires has not changed; Romulans in TOS/TAS were not fascists, but in TNG, fascism is the most accurate description of what the state had become.
On the contrary, the soft canon material was based on an interpretation of the evidence. That interpretation did not derive from soft canon, but quite the opposite.
It was not. The non-canon explanation of an alliance was a means to explain away the use of the D7 model (established as a Klingon design) by the Romulans. There is no evidence of an alliance existing that lead a writer to say, 'lets give the Romulans some D7s in this episode, after all they're allied with the Klingons'.
It WAS. Nobody said diddly about hard canon there except you, so either you're again trying to Straw Man or you are failing to grasp what I said. Soft canon is not hard canon. Soft canon is also not "non-canon," regardless of your and targ's unwillingness to admit that soft canon is a thing. The INTERPRETATION of TEI by fans is where the soft canon material came from in the first place. You are putting the cart before the horse. Fans didn't get the idea from soft canon. Soft canon got the idea from fans. The idea was around before any soft canon inclusion
Established characterization which was first presented in TNG, and not before.
It doesn't matter, the characterisation is retroactive, the ENT era Klingons and Romulans were the same as the TNG era versions.
It does matter, and no, the characterization is not retroactive. As far as ENT, you do realize, I suppose, that there are many Trekkers who point to the final episode and use that as evidence that the entire series was nothing but a holodeck program? There are more who point out that ENT played havoc with the continuity of the Trek universe, because, you know, it did. ENT is wildly inconsistent with established facts from all the other series. All of them. Now, you can continue that fundamentalist route you took the last time we had this discussion, and cling to hard canon intransigently insisting that it's holy writ and the only authority, but you're going to have to come to terms with the inconsistencies and even blatant contradictions sooner or later, or deal with cognitive dissonance and doublethink as you attempt to explain things which are obviously not merely contraries, but contradictions.
Riker alludes to previous alliance (not "a" previous alliance) in his exclamation "A new Klingon alliance with the Romulans!?" That is not a reference to a past alliance, but an allusion to the notion that the two powers had allied in the past; nothing in that indicates or even suggests the number of times they had allied previously, apart from the implication that they had done so at least once in the past.
Yes. It also doesn't support your theory that it was more than once. It's easy for me to conclude it means one time, but it's equally as easy for you to conclude it means more than once to back up you non-canon sources.
That's what I said, except that you're tossing in an attempt to discredit my interpretation by insisting that my sources are "non-canon," while not admitting that your source (your interpretation) is as much "non-canon" as mine. You don't have to like it, as I have stated, but the talk of an alliance was around almost as soon as TEI was broadcast (I was alive then, and I saw this episode when it was first broadcast, and I heard fan interpretations before there were any novels which used the fan interpretations). Fans came up with it as their interpretation of things in the episode. It wasn't till LATER that writers put it into soft canon. Now, again, let me point out that I said SOFT canon here, so you don't again try to misinterpret that.
BoT was made before TEI. BoT was a first season episode; TEI was a third season episode. Obviously, the Raptor existed prior to TEI. The logo appears in several places inside the Memenda. And of course it in itself is not a conclusion, but it is certainly evidence, and it's inside a Romulan ship, not a Klingon ship. It's also shoddily placed, which was likely due to hasty placement for the show, but in-universe could be explained as having been put up to cover another logo. It's more than interesting, though. But I have had a feeling for some time that no matter what evidence is presented, you will dismiss it in favor of your own interpretation. It is a form of Confirmation Bias.
I just looked up Memenda, it's the Commanders D7, in that case the hexagonal emblem could be a Klingon emblem, not a Romulan one. You can hardly talk about confirmation bias here. The colours and shape of the logo are similar to the then current Klingon logo, there is nothing to suggest it isn't a variation of that.
The Romulan Commander, yes. It never appears ANYWHERE else, not on Romulan or Klingon vessels, nor in any other context, Romulan, Klingon, or otherwise. This logo is unique to this ship in this episode. Confirmation Bias means, among other things, that you dismiss or ignore any evidence which does not fit your preconceived idea. You've done it in past discussions of this alliance and you're doing it now.
Nobody said it was conclusive. In fact, I already pointed out that it's not. It is, however, evidence, and you're going to have to deal with it in some way other than "I have an idea and this must be made to fit it."
Now you're trying to attack a Straw Man. Your assumption is no more based on characterization and dialogue than mine, except insofar as you are engaging in anachronism with regard to characterization. There is in fact NO characterization of so much as moderate dislike between the two species prior to TNG, and projecting that 24th century attitude back onto the people of the 23rd century without any evidence is 1. anachronism, and 2. unwarranted assumption ("Never is plurality placed without necessity," yet here you are, assuming that the attitudes of 24th century Klingons toward Romulans were the attitudes of 23rd century Klingons toward Romulans, and without the slightest bit of evidence to support that -- indeed, with hard canon indicating that the two people had had at least one alliance in the past, and Worf speaking of a time when the Romulans betrayed the Klingons "at a time when they were supposed to be our allies," an act of betrayal which is far more reasonable to assume was the cause of the later hatred!).
Except the ENT versions of both powers is the same as their later portrayal, and again, with the exception of the Commander, the TOS Romulans are not really that different from the DS9 Romulans. This is ST not real life, using established 'hats' instead of characters is all the writers need. I see little difference in the attitudes of Kor and Martok or the Commander from TEI and Creeteek.
I don't see that in ENT, and again, Cretak was one of the few exceptions to the standard or predominant portrayal of Romulans in TNG (and to a lesser extent DS9, because in DS9, where Cretak shows up, the Romulans have begun to be softened again from what TNG had made them into, a caricature like so many other things in TNG were caricatures).
Again, incorrect. Your supposed "established characters" were not established before TNG, an event is referred to twice, once by Riker and once by Worf, in which the two were allied in the past, one of the references is to a betrayal, which is, if you like that incorrect rendering of Ockham's Razor, the simplest and smallest number of assumptions, in that it involves more of the only evidence you say you will accept. The Romulans and Klingons were fine with each other in TOS; they had an alliance in the 2260s, they had another alliance later, in the 2340s (possibly beginning in the 2330s, but we have no evidence of when it began nor how long it lasted), destroyed when Praetor Dralath ordered the betrayal in 2344 at Narendra-III and Khitomer in 2346. The only things in that which come from soft canon are the name "Dralath," and the idea that he ordered the betrayal, although some of that contains the common interpretation that the two powers had an alliance in the 2260s, which interpretation went into soft canon.
No. Even if there were evidence to a TOS era alliance there would be completely different terms to the non-canon version, a trade between D7s and violation of the Romulan side of the border for instance. There is no reason to assume any canon evidence of a TOS era alliance would point to the non-canon fully formed D7 for cloak alliance with all the particulars you mentioned.
There IS evidence to a TOS-era alliance. And the interpretation of that evidence BY FANS OF THE SERIES BEFORE THERE WAS ANY SOFT CANON ALLUSION TO SUCH AN ALLIANCE is no more "non-canon" than your speculation that the Romulans stole the ships.
D7-R = The standard of all romulan cruisers for its era
The D7 was the work horse of the klingon fleet and during its time was such a good vessel the romulan stole either the Blueprints or a D7 itself and built thier own version the D7-R.
Both the D7 and the D7-R were the gold bar for every other species to strive for during its prime as the core ships of both the klingon and romulan fleet.
The D7 which later was upgraded and modified to the K'tinga is still the standard by which ALL klingon cruisers are designed around and shows not only the longevity but the outstanding workmanship of the original D7.
The romulans however went a different direction after the D7-Rs were taken off the line they went for ships they designed around their cloaking technology and singularity core.
They abandoned the D7-R due to it not only being obscolete but it was a klingon design and as per usual romulan sycophants they wanted to erase any remnants of their involvement with the klingons and no matter how good the D7-R was it was still a slap in their face.
And we're back to the same place we were a few months ago, unable to agree on what is and isn't canon, and thus rendering any discussion moot.
You plan on sticking on your 'soft-canon' alliance with the barest minimum of support from 'hard-canon' and I do not see any conclusive evidence from hard-canon (or simply canon) to support an alliance of any sort, never mind one matching the minutia of the 'soft-canon' version.
As interesting as it would be to discuss the meaning of the hexagonal emblem or simpler ways Klingons could get cloaks it is ultimately pointless as we're not even using the same level-ground to work from. You know, the very reason a canon exists.
I have no particular reason for disbelieving in the alliance other than it's lack of supporting evidence and no biases towards anything Romulan or Klingon and until sufficient evidence is shown from a canon standpoint, again, the null hypothesis is retained.
Interpret as you will.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
And we're back to the same place we were a few months ago, unable to agree on what is and isn't canon, and thus rendering any discussion moot.
You plan on sticking on your 'soft-canon' alliance with the barest minimum of support from 'hard-canon' and I do not see any conclusive evidence from hard-canon (or simply canon) to support an alliance of any sort, never mind one matching the minutia of the 'soft-canon' version.
As interesting as it would be to discuss the meaning of the hexagonal emblem or simpler ways Klingons could get cloaks it is ultimately pointless as we're not even using the same level-ground to work from. You know, the very reason a canon exists.
I have no particular reason for disbelieving in the alliance other than it's lack of supporting evidence and no biases towards anything Romulan or Klingon and until sufficient evidence is shown from a canon standpoint, again, the null hypothesis is retained.
Interpret as you will.
Tbh the D7 and D7-R are canon the only major difference is the klingons chose to base most of their cruisers even current designs from the classic D7s original designs which says how good the D7 was.
The romulans chose to go a different way after the D7-R due to them not wanting any simlarities with klingons but both are canon and have been seen in star trek.
Klingon D7 cruiser
Romulan D7-R
I posted pics from the series which shows both classes klingon and romulan.
I know both races used the D7, I even think it's most likely the Romulans got theirs by stealing plans or complete vessels. The D7 is defiantly a Klingon design it was even pointed out as Klingon in the TEI.
It's unknown what happened to the Romulan D7s after TOS, the next ship we saw was the D'D, a singularity powered ship with a bird resemblance (similar to the T'liss and T'varo).
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I know both races used the D7, I even think it's most likely the Romulans got theirs by stealing plans or complete vessels. The D7 is defiantly a Klingon design it was even pointed out as Klingon in the TEI.
It's unknown what happened to the Romulan D7s after TOS, the next ship we saw was the D'D, a singularity powered ship with a bird resemblance (similar to the T'liss and T'varo).
Yeah thats right the roms actually stole the designs for the D7 then built their own D7-R varient.
the differences were the original D7 was a tank it could absorb alot of damage the D7-R was kinda fragile it relied heavly on cloaking and ambush like most rom ships of that era.
Ive read some books where the D7-R was phased out pretty fast it was more of a stopping point for the romulans since at that time they actually didnt have any battle ready cruiser and the D7-R fit the bill.
After D7-R the romulans started several projects one called the phoenix warbird prototype which was the progenitor of the D'Deridex.
The D7-R was only in service for a relativly short time a decade or so before being completley scrapped for mor romulan designs.
(...)
The D7-R was only in service for a relativly short time a decade or so before being completley scrapped for mor romulan designs.
I'd say that's not very plausible.
@protogoth : I have a feeling that my differentiation between canon and non-canon does, in your eyes, somehow devalue works, sources or interpretations/opinions. But that's not the case, just because something is non-canon it can be discussed and used as potential canon explanations, it just should be marked as such.
The reason why I think "soft-canon" is a superflous definition is that soft-canon is just interpretation/fan fiction which paid licensing fees, nothing more. That does not make it "better" or "worse", it just sells better. If I was to write a novel about Targs and publish it on the net it is just as "canonical" as Diane Duane's books because the IP holders decided what's canon and what's not. Even if back in the day you could buy your way into "canon" (if Rodenberry ever made a definition what is and what isn't), today you can't and nothing changes that. Until a new show or movie uses something it will never become canon. Again, that does not devalue anything, there's plenty of non-canonical material I like and often cite as possible explanations/versions of Trek history.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Yeah thats right the roms actually stole the designs for the D7 then built their own D7-R varient.
the differences were the original D7 was a tank it could absorb alot of damage the D7-R was kinda fragile it relied heavly on cloaking and ambush like most rom ships of that era.
Ive read some books where the D7-R was phased out pretty fast it was more of a stopping point for the romulans since at that time they actually didnt have any battle ready cruiser and the D7-R fit the bill.
After D7-R the romulans started several projects one called the phoenix warbird prototype which was the progenitor of the D'Deridex.
The D7-R was only in service for a relativly short time a decade or so before being completley scrapped for mor romulan designs.
Well, I'd say it's likley, I would't say it's right, it's still only speculation, but it's certainly the most 'Romulan' approach to getting something they want.
(...)
The D7-R was only in service for a relativly short time a decade or so before being completley scrapped for mor romulan designs.
I'd say that's not very plausible.
Regardless of how they got the D7s in the first place, I can't see them dumping them after a decade or so, the D7 (or more precisely its refit) lasted for over a hundred years (ignoring ENT).
The Federation still used Mirandas even when they had Galaxys, the Klingons still used K't'ingas even when they had Vor'chas, I can see the Romulans still using D7s even when they've got D'Ds.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Romulans in TOS/TAS were not fascists, but in TNG, fascism is the most accurate description of what the state had become.
how many fascist governments do you know that have a senate or a praetor? the romulan state in TNG is the same state the romans had at the height of their empire, with SOME fascist elements blended in maybe (although the tal shiar seems far more gestapo-like than whatever secret police forces mussolini and castro used during their respective reigns, so it would be national socialism more than fascism), but the whole government certainly isn't fascist
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
No. Someone interpreted the evidence in that manner, which resulted in the decades of books and comics and whatnot. The evidence does not support your interpretation more than it supports ours (and in fact, I argue that ours has more support), but the fact is that both are interpretations, and you don't get to dismiss the one you dislike simply because you interpreted the evidence differently (and based in part, I might add, on LATER developments; the "hatred" of Klingons for Romulans developed AFTER the Khitomer Massacre, not before; indeed, the very fact of an alliance existing between the two up to that event is itself evidence that the Klingons did not hate the Romulans at the time).
On the contrary, the soft canon material was based on an interpretation of the evidence. That interpretation did not derive from soft canon, but quite the opposite.
Established characterization which was first presented in TNG, and not before.
Riker alludes to previous alliance (not "a" previous alliance) in his exclamation "A new Klingon alliance with the Romulans!?" That is not a reference to a past alliance, but an allusion to the notion that the two powers had allied in the past; nothing in that indicates or even suggests the number of times they had allied previously, apart from the implication that they had done so at least once in the past.
BoT was made before TEI. BoT was a first season episode; TEI was a third season episode. Obviously, the Raptor existed prior to TEI. The logo appears in several places inside the Memenda. And of course it in itself is not a conclusion, but it is certainly evidence, and it's inside a Romulan ship, not a Klingon ship. It's also shoddily placed, which was likely due to hasty placement for the show, but in-universe could be explained as having been put up to cover another logo. It's more than interesting, though. But I have had a feeling for some time that no matter what evidence is presented, you will dismiss it in favor of your own interpretation. It is a form of Confirmation Bias.
Recte: "Never is plurality placed without necessity."
Now you're trying to attack a Straw Man. Your assumption is no more based on characterization and dialogue than mine, except insofar as you are engaging in anachronism with regard to characterization. There is in fact NO characterization of so much as moderate dislike between the two species prior to TNG, and projecting that 24th century attitude back onto the people of the 23rd century without any evidence is 1. anachronism, and 2. unwarranted assumption ("Never is plurality placed without necessity," yet here you are, assuming that the attitudes of 24th century Klingons toward Romulans were the attitudes of 23rd century Klingons toward Romulans, and without the slightest bit of evidence to support that -- indeed, with hard canon indicating that the two people had had at least one alliance in the past, and Worf speaking of a time when the Romulans betrayed the Klingons "at a time when they were supposed to be our allies," an act of betrayal which is far more reasonable to assume was the cause of the later hatred!).
That was me contacting my ship and ordering them to beam me aboard.
Again, incorrect. Your supposed "established characters" were not established before TNG, an event is referred to twice, once by Riker and once by Worf, in which the two were allied in the past, one of the references is to a betrayal, which is, if you like that incorrect rendering of Ockham's Razor, the simplest and smallest number of assumptions, in that it involves more of the only evidence you say you will accept. The Romulans and Klingons were fine with each other in TOS; they had an alliance in the 2260s, they had another alliance later, in the 2340s (possibly beginning in the 2330s, but we have no evidence of when it began nor how long it lasted), destroyed when Praetor Dralath ordered the betrayal in 2344 at Narendra-III and Khitomer in 2346. The only things in that which come from soft canon are the name "Dralath," and the idea that he ordered the betrayal, although some of that contains the common interpretation that the two powers had an alliance in the 2260s, which interpretation went into soft canon.
Whether the hatred developed before or after Kitomer is immaterial the two powers relate to each other as TRIBBLE Germany and the USSR, true this is based upon evidence from TNG and DS9, but the nature of their Empires has not changed since the ENT era.
It was not. The non-canon explanation of an alliance was a means to explain away the use of the D7 model (established as a Klingon design) by the Romulans. There is no evidence of an alliance existing that lead a writer to say, 'lets give the Romulans some D7s in this episode, after all they're allied with the Klingons'.
It doesn't matter, the characterisation is retroactive, the ENT era Klingons and Romulans were the same as the TNG era versions.
Yes. It also doesn't support your theory that it was more than once. It's easy for me to conclude it means one time, but it's equally as easy for you to conclude it means more than once to back up you non-canon sources.
I just looked up Memenda, it's the Commanders D7, in that case the hexagonal emblem could be a Klingon emblem, not a Romulan one. You can hardly talk about confirmation bias here. The colours and shape of the logo are similar to the then current Klingon logo, there is nothing to suggest it isn't a variation of that.
I don't think it's conclusive either way.
Except the ENT versions of both powers is the same as their later portrayal, and again, with the exception of the Commander, the TOS Romulans are not really that different from the DS9 Romulans. This is ST not real life, using established 'hats' instead of characters is all the writers need. I see little difference in the attitudes of Kor and Martok or the Commander from TEI and Creeteek.
No. Even if there were evidence to a TOS era alliance there would be completely different terms to the non-canon version, a trade between D7s and violation of the Romulan side of the border for instance. There is no reason to assume any canon evidence of a TOS era alliance would point to the non-canon fully formed D7 for cloak alliance with all the particulars you mentioned.
Again it would be the equivalent of TRIBBLE Germany trading the nuke to the USSR for jet planes. Even if the USSR could't build their own nukes they can now, you've given them the ability to reverse engineer them and improve them. What do the TRIBBLE get in return? A fast plane. That's even ignoring the fact that, unlike the USSR, the Klingon could have got cloaks from at least two other sources (so could get nukes without giving up jets) And the Romulans surely have other places that can get faster ships without having to give up cloaks.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It absolutely is not. You made a claim. I pointed out the flaw. Now you're moving the goalposts.
Yes, based on evidence from TNG and DS9, and not supported in any way whatsoever by anything before that.
And yes, they have changed both very significantly from the TOS/TAS era. Back then, the Romulans were the honorable warriors, the Klingons were cutthroat pirates when they were being particularly nasty, or Cossacks when they were being kind of nice. Back then, the Romulans had a salute which was, like many other Romulan characteristics, stolen from the Romulans by the makers of TNG and given to the Klingons, although the Klingons only got the first part of it. Back then, Klingons were the ones sneaking around and disguising themselves to stir trouble in Federation space, something which TNG decided to apply to Romulans instead. The list can go on indefinitely. I find it astounding that you claim that the nature of their empires has not changed; Romulans in TOS/TAS were not fascists, but in TNG, fascism is the most accurate description of what the state had become.
It WAS. Nobody said diddly about hard canon there except you, so either you're again trying to Straw Man or you are failing to grasp what I said. Soft canon is not hard canon. Soft canon is also not "non-canon," regardless of your and targ's unwillingness to admit that soft canon is a thing. The INTERPRETATION of TEI by fans is where the soft canon material came from in the first place. You are putting the cart before the horse. Fans didn't get the idea from soft canon. Soft canon got the idea from fans. The idea was around before any soft canon inclusion
It does matter, and no, the characterization is not retroactive. As far as ENT, you do realize, I suppose, that there are many Trekkers who point to the final episode and use that as evidence that the entire series was nothing but a holodeck program? There are more who point out that ENT played havoc with the continuity of the Trek universe, because, you know, it did. ENT is wildly inconsistent with established facts from all the other series. All of them. Now, you can continue that fundamentalist route you took the last time we had this discussion, and cling to hard canon intransigently insisting that it's holy writ and the only authority, but you're going to have to come to terms with the inconsistencies and even blatant contradictions sooner or later, or deal with cognitive dissonance and doublethink as you attempt to explain things which are obviously not merely contraries, but contradictions.
That's what I said, except that you're tossing in an attempt to discredit my interpretation by insisting that my sources are "non-canon," while not admitting that your source (your interpretation) is as much "non-canon" as mine. You don't have to like it, as I have stated, but the talk of an alliance was around almost as soon as TEI was broadcast (I was alive then, and I saw this episode when it was first broadcast, and I heard fan interpretations before there were any novels which used the fan interpretations). Fans came up with it as their interpretation of things in the episode. It wasn't till LATER that writers put it into soft canon. Now, again, let me point out that I said SOFT canon here, so you don't again try to misinterpret that.
The Romulan Commander, yes. It never appears ANYWHERE else, not on Romulan or Klingon vessels, nor in any other context, Romulan, Klingon, or otherwise. This logo is unique to this ship in this episode. Confirmation Bias means, among other things, that you dismiss or ignore any evidence which does not fit your preconceived idea. You've done it in past discussions of this alliance and you're doing it now.
Nobody said it was conclusive. In fact, I already pointed out that it's not. It is, however, evidence, and you're going to have to deal with it in some way other than "I have an idea and this must be made to fit it."
D7-R = The standard of all romulan cruisers for its era
The D7 was the work horse of the klingon fleet and during its time was such a good vessel the romulan stole either the Blueprints or a D7 itself and built thier own version the D7-R.
Both the D7 and the D7-R were the gold bar for every other species to strive for during its prime as the core ships of both the klingon and romulan fleet.
The D7 which later was upgraded and modified to the K'tinga is still the standard by which ALL klingon cruisers are designed around and shows not only the longevity but the outstanding workmanship of the original D7.
The romulans however went a different direction after the D7-Rs were taken off the line they went for ships they designed around their cloaking technology and singularity core.
They abandoned the D7-R due to it not only being obscolete but it was a klingon design and as per usual romulan sycophants they wanted to erase any remnants of their involvement with the klingons and no matter how good the D7-R was it was still a slap in their face.
You plan on sticking on your 'soft-canon' alliance with the barest minimum of support from 'hard-canon' and I do not see any conclusive evidence from hard-canon (or simply canon) to support an alliance of any sort, never mind one matching the minutia of the 'soft-canon' version.
As interesting as it would be to discuss the meaning of the hexagonal emblem or simpler ways Klingons could get cloaks it is ultimately pointless as we're not even using the same level-ground to work from. You know, the very reason a canon exists.
I have no particular reason for disbelieving in the alliance other than it's lack of supporting evidence and no biases towards anything Romulan or Klingon and until sufficient evidence is shown from a canon standpoint, again, the null hypothesis is retained.
Interpret as you will.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Tbh the D7 and D7-R are canon the only major difference is the klingons chose to base most of their cruisers even current designs from the classic D7s original designs which says how good the D7 was.
The romulans chose to go a different way after the D7-R due to them not wanting any simlarities with klingons but both are canon and have been seen in star trek.
Klingon D7 cruiser
Romulan D7-R
I posted pics from the series which shows both classes klingon and romulan.
It's unknown what happened to the Romulan D7s after TOS, the next ship we saw was the D'D, a singularity powered ship with a bird resemblance (similar to the T'liss and T'varo).
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yeah thats right the roms actually stole the designs for the D7 then built their own D7-R varient.
the differences were the original D7 was a tank it could absorb alot of damage the D7-R was kinda fragile it relied heavly on cloaking and ambush like most rom ships of that era.
Ive read some books where the D7-R was phased out pretty fast it was more of a stopping point for the romulans since at that time they actually didnt have any battle ready cruiser and the D7-R fit the bill.
After D7-R the romulans started several projects one called the phoenix warbird prototype which was the progenitor of the D'Deridex.
The D7-R was only in service for a relativly short time a decade or so before being completley scrapped for mor romulan designs.
I'd say that's not very plausible.
@protogoth : I have a feeling that my differentiation between canon and non-canon does, in your eyes, somehow devalue works, sources or interpretations/opinions. But that's not the case, just because something is non-canon it can be discussed and used as potential canon explanations, it just should be marked as such.
The reason why I think "soft-canon" is a superflous definition is that soft-canon is just interpretation/fan fiction which paid licensing fees, nothing more. That does not make it "better" or "worse", it just sells better. If I was to write a novel about Targs and publish it on the net it is just as "canonical" as Diane Duane's books because the IP holders decided what's canon and what's not. Even if back in the day you could buy your way into "canon" (if Rodenberry ever made a definition what is and what isn't), today you can't and nothing changes that. Until a new show or movie uses something it will never become canon. Again, that does not devalue anything, there's plenty of non-canonical material I like and often cite as possible explanations/versions of Trek history.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well, I'd say it's likley, I would't say it's right, it's still only speculation, but it's certainly the most 'Romulan' approach to getting something they want.
What books are these?
Regardless of how they got the D7s in the first place, I can't see them dumping them after a decade or so, the D7 (or more precisely its refit) lasted for over a hundred years (ignoring ENT).
The Federation still used Mirandas even when they had Galaxys, the Klingons still used K't'ingas even when they had Vor'chas, I can see the Romulans still using D7s even when they've got D'Ds.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
how many fascist governments do you know that have a senate or a praetor? the romulan state in TNG is the same state the romans had at the height of their empire, with SOME fascist elements blended in maybe (although the tal shiar seems far more gestapo-like than whatever secret police forces mussolini and castro used during their respective reigns, so it would be national socialism more than fascism), but the whole government certainly isn't fascist
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"