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.
Age of Klingon Empire?
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
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.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
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?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
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.Captain Seafort wrote:Not all empires are totalitarian.
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 wrote:And some are responsible for triggering the greatest leaps in technological progress in history.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
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.Mikey wrote:In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.
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.Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
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.Captain Seafort wrote: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.Mikey wrote:In common usage, the term "empire" pretty much always implies an emperor of some sort at the top. That's totalitarian.
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.Even those same ones are also responsible for stifling, either by regulation or by cultural bent, progress in technological and other fields as well.
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 .
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
.................................................Billy Currington
.................................................Billy Currington
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: Age of Klingon Empire?
Nonetheless...Vic wrote: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.
Many have been, that's true, but that doesn't mean the two are synonyms.Your usage of Empire is very much a modern one, most empires of history were indeed totalitarian
And back again. Given how long they ran the known world, it's hardly surprising that the details varied over time.The Romans went from a dictatorial empire to a tyrannical empire over a short period of time
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.