Age of Klingon Empire?

[McAvoy]

I would have to ask how much ENT technology we saw on the NX class was home grown or developed from obsolete samples or whatever. Also from what we have seen Earth wasn't that much of presence in the galactic stage. Not much of a infrastructure. Then we compare the Klingons and the Romulans who have been out in space for a much longer period and what do they got?

We do not know the rate of the Federation's tech advancement except in speed. Keep in mind that the turbine engines of 1912 is basically the same as today. Hell hand guns haven't changed much either.

[Teaos]

Tech is secondary in this case. I think industrial capability has a much bigger stake in this. And with hundreds or thousands of years the older empires kick arse.

[McAvoy]

Yes. But what if it was the Federation that kicked off the expansion and technological leaps from the 22nd century on? What I mean is with a young and rapidly expanding organization like the UFP caused the Klingons and the Romulans to jump start their own Empire or be left in the dust?

[Mikey]

Not all empires are totalitarian.

In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian. You may be confused by a connotation that wasn't included in my comment - I never ascribed the typical negative connotation to the term "totalitarian," but it still is what it is.

And some are responsible for triggering the greatest leaps in technological progress in history.

Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.

[Captain Seafort]

In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.

Not at all - in common usage "Empire", at least on this side of the pond, refers to a nation state expanding to seize control of other nation states, and bring them under its direct control. There's absolutely no connotation of there being an Emperor at the top, or of it being totalitarian, which refers to a state under the absolute rule of a single individual, and usually associated with a cult of personality.

Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.

Given that the fall of one of history's definitive empires was far from stifling, and lead to a collapse of technology and civilisation across the known world, I disagree with this notion as well.

[Vic]

In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.

Not at all - in common usage "Empire", at least on this side of the pond, refers to a nation state expanding to seize control of other nation states, and bring them under its direct control. There's absolutely no connotation of there being an Emperor at the top, or of it being totalitarian, which refers to a state under the absolute rule of a single individual, and usually associated with a cult of personality.

Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.

Given that the fall of one of history's definitive empires was far from stifling, and lead to a collapse of technology and civilisation across the known world, I disagree with this notion as well.

That very empire was quite stifling to many types of technology by cultural bent. It wasn't till the decline of slavery that mechanical technology really took off, and the Roman's had no shortage of slaves to do all kinds of work.

Your usage of Empire is very much a modern one, most empires of history were indeed totalitarian, Shi Huang Di was the very definition of a tyrant. The Romans went from a dictatorial empire to a tyrannical empire over a short period of time, I am using the words in their correct definition not their colloquial ones. Too often today the words are interchangeable .

[Captain Seafort]

That very empire was quite stifling to many types of technology by cultural bent. It wasn't till the decline of slavery that mechanical technology really took off, and the Roman's had no shortage of slaves to do all kinds of work.

Nonetheless...

Your usage of Empire is very much a modern one, most empires of history were indeed totalitarian

Many have been, that's true, but that doesn't mean the two are synonyms.

The Romans went from a dictatorial empire to a tyrannical empire over a short period of time

And back again. Given how long they ran the known world, it's hardly surprising that the details varied over time.