www.ditl.org

I personally thought that Romulan chain of command was much more political, "How well you are in view with the admirals". This would naturally promote a more cunning nature in order to advance over other candidates.

Picard wrote:I always thought that Romulan low-level commanders (starship captains etc) are nasty sneaky bastards beacouse they are told to act that way by government, and are actually, as people, honorable. Thought definition of "honor" may vary.

Also remember that they are badly outnumbered by their neighbors and enemies. Head on conflict is a bad position for the RSE to have to face. The Dominion War is a good example of this in action. Using sneak attacks and evasion tactics allows them to put their ships to their best use. It makes sense that because of this, they would train their officers to such a manner.

You can't order someone to have a particular personality type. More likely, the Romulan Star Navy preferentially recruits a/o advances such people.

Mikey wrote:You can't order someone to have a particular personality type. More likely, the Romulan Star Navy preferentially recruits a/o advances such people.

Was that to me, cause I don't recall even hinting that...

I assume it was aimed at Picard, since he explicitly said so.

Ah, as to that I don't think Picard meant change their personality but more to push them to behave in such a way that benefits the needs of the Romulan Empire as a whole.

To say it in short: In military which promotes sneaky attacks as best course of action, commanders good at performing such attacks will get promoted. If it opposes such attacks, commanders who push such attacks will be probably wieved as dishonorable and won't advance throught ranks rapidly, or won't advance at all (supposing they don't get degraded). Which means you get modus operandi for entire force, plus you won't be teaching "dishonorable" tactics at Academy. Plus training you get has much to do with shaping your behaviour at war.

You're mixing up tactics with mideset. The very commander who sparked this debate was commanding a cloaked Bird of Prey on a black op against the Federation, but he was clearly a soldier doing his duty. Likewise, submarine warfare generally is very much the modern equivalent of that mission, and submarine warfare against civilian shipping particularly so. It would, however, be a mistake to think of all U-boat commanders as stereotypical goose-stepping Nazis, machine-gunning survivors. If you want a more accurate depiction, watch Das Boot.

They were doing what they were ordered to and wieved it as their duty. But when submarines first appeared, many were against use of submarines at warfare (interestingly, one German admiral said that "all submarine crews should be executed as pirates"). Mindset influences tactics a lot. Ban Derencin (I'm Croat so I will use him as example) lost battle of Krbava field beacouse he wieved attacking Turks from ambush as something dishonorable, and opted to engage them at open field, against advice of some commanders in his army, who wanted to engage Turks in hills where Turks calvary advantage (especially in light cavalry) will be neutralized. In end, they ended up being ambushed, surrounded and annihilated. So mindset definetly influences tactics, if it is widespread enough.

Great display of historical fact-spewing, but so what? The use of a particular tactic doesn't in any way mean an identical personality to other practitioners of that tactic.